[branching off the thread here ...] (01)
>> [DH] do you think Ontolog should organize itself to be the
>> custodian of all this? If not, who would watch over it? (02)
> [JS] Ontolog is not currently designed for such a function,
> but that might be something that could be taken on by
> a consortium that might evolve out of Ontolog participants.
>
> That is a good point to discuss. (03)
[ppy] I welcome the discussion to explore this further. .... I would
even offer to (have CIM3) provide the collaborative infrastructure for
such an endeavor. (04)
CIM3 is already: (05)
(a) working on a collaborative ontology development and repository
service infrastructure with the Protege team (see "CODS":
http://protege.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ProjectsThatUseProtege#nid5JM). (06)
(b) We're also hosting some of the SUMO work (e.g. as in the Ontolog
CCT-Rep project -
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/ontology/UBLONT/CCTONT-worksheet-v0-4.html),
and (07)
(c) providing platform for the ONTAC-WG (ref:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG) (08)
Regards. =ppy
-- (09)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Duane Nickull <dnickull@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: May 3, 2007 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] A "common basis"
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (010)
As a former registry-repository company CTO, I give #1 a BIG thumbs up.
This would be a great manner in which to capture and share knowledge. Ed
Buchinski, from the Canadian Government, has been trying to get this sort of
a project afloat for years. (011)
Duane (012)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Doug Holmes <dholmes@xxxxxxx>
Date: May 3, 2007 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] A "common basis"
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (013)
John
That's what I thought, too...
Doug (014)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: May 3, 2007 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] A "common basis"
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (015)
Doug, (016)
That's a good question. (017)
> do you think Ontolog should organize itself to be the
> custodian of all this? If not, who would watch over it? (018)
Ontolog is not currently designed for such a function,
but that might be something that could be taken on by
a consortium that might evolve out of Ontolog participants. (019)
That is a good point to discuss. (020)
John (021)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Doug Holmes <dholmes@xxxxxxx>
Date: May 3, 2007 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] A "common basis"
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (022)
John,
I know this is notional and that you're sketching an architecture.
Nevertheless, do you think Ontolog should organize itself to be the
custodian of all this? If not, who would watch over it?
Doug (023)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: May 3, 2007 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] A "common basis"
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (024)
I would like to make a suggestion about the question of
common vs. federated approaches to sharing ontologies. (025)
Unless we have a detailed specification of what features
would be in either a common approach or a federated approach,
we have no clear basis for comparison. Therefore, I'll begin
with some suggestions for what I'd like to see: (026)
1. A repository, based on the ISO Metadata Registry standards,
for organizing and making available ontologies, large and
small, their pieces, components, or modules, and all the
info about who, what, when, where, how, and why. (027)
2. Translators for logic-based languages, at least Common Logic
and the W3C standards, but also any others that anyone might
wish to contribute. (028)
3. Tools for aligning ontologies and modules of ontologies. (029)
4. Collections of all the ontologies and modules anyone might want
to contribute, either for free or for whatever fee the developer
wishes to charge. SUMO, OpenCyc, DOLCE, BFO, and any others
would all be included. (030)
5. Etc. (open invitation for anyone to add their "druthers"). (031)
This approach is necessary for a federated approach and it would be
extremely useful for the current state where multiple groups are
proposing competing (or cooperating) ontologies. (032)
Instead of debating which approach is better, I suggest that we
start designing something along the lines above and let users
"vote with their feet" for whichever collection(s) of resources
they find most useful. (033)
John Sowa (034)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (035)
|