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)
|