ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Infrastructure for ... A "common basis"

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Duane Nickull <dnickull@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 20:13:12 -0700
Message-id: <C25FF2D8.E704%dnickull@xxxxxxxxx>
11179 has flaws IMO.  The ebXML Registry-repositroy came up with some
advancements but was still short.  UDDI sucks as a registry (was never
designed to be one anyways).  I would welcome a new standard.    (01)

BTW - if anyone wants to read up on the subject, I have a 3 day course
available for download on my personal site at nickull.net.  It delves into
all three is *painful* detail (works great as a sleep aide).    (02)

Duane    (03)

On 5/3/07 8:04 PM, "Cassidy, Patrick J." <pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:    (04)

> If there is a site available, I suggest we contact the XMDR team:
>   http://xmdr.org/related_sites.html
> 
>  . . .  To see if they have yet identified an actual repository that
> will use their registry standard.  They have been working to devise a
> registry standard as a successor to 11179, specifically to handle
> metadata relevant to ontologies and their relations
> 
> Pat
> 
> Patrick Cassidy
> CNTR-MITRE
> 260 Industrial Way West
> Eatontown NJ 07724
> Eatontown: 732-578-6340
> Cell: 908-565-4053
> pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx
>  
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter
> Yim
>> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 9:52 PM
>> To: [ontolog-forum]
>> Subject: [ontolog-forum] Infrastructure for ... A "common basis"
>> 
>> [branching off the thread here ...]
>> 
>>>> [DH] do you think Ontolog should organize itself to be the
>>>> custodian of all this? If not, who would watch over it?
>> 
>>> [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.
>> 
>> [ppy]  I welcome the discussion to explore this further.  .... I
> would
>> even offer to (have CIM3) provide the collaborative infrastructure
> for
>> such an endeavor.
>> 
>> CIM3 is already:
>> 
>> (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).
>> 
>> (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-works
>> heet-v0-4.html),
>> and
>> 
>> (c) providing platform for the ONTAC-WG (ref:
>> http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG)
>> 
>> Regards.  =ppy
>> --
>> 
>> 
>> ---------- 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>
>> 
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> Duane
>> 
>> 
>> ---------- 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>
>> 
>> John
>>         That's what I thought, too...
>> Doug
>> 
>> 
>> ---------- 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>
>> 
>> Doug,
>> 
>> That's a good question.
>> 
>>> do you think Ontolog should organize itself to be the
>>> custodian of all this? If not, who would watch over it?
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> 
>> ---------- 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>
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> ---------- 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>
>> 
>> I would like to make a suggestion about the question of
>> common vs. federated approaches to sharing ontologies.
>> 
>> 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:
>> 
>>   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.
>> 
>>   2. Translators for logic-based languages, at least Common Logic
>>      and the W3C standards, but also any others that anyone might
>>      wish to contribute.
>> 
>>   3. Tools for aligning ontologies and modules of ontologies.
>> 
>>   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.
>> 
>>   5. Etc. (open invitation for anyone to add their "druthers").
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> John Sowa
>>  
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>  
>> 
>  
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>      (05)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (06)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>