[re-posting Carl Mattock's message to put it back into the thread. =ppy
] (01)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: carl mattocks <carlmattocks@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: May 4, 2007 6:43 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] ontolog-forum Digest, Vol 53, Issue 10
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (02)
The OASIS Registry Repository TC would welcome this as a Use-case
which may result in a formal Ontology Registry & Repository Profile
being created similar to the OWL profile
http://docs.oasis-open.org/regrep/v3.0/profiles/owl/regrep-owl-profile-v1.5-cd01.html
... I am sure the free ebXML Registry folk would also be interested in
implementing said functionality. (03)
On 5/3/07, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [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-worksheet-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
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|