Pat pdm
,
in addition to your observations above, open is not just 'able to
read'. but also to rip, modify, repurpose, deconstruct,. and possibly
other things
ph
Of course. If you can read a file, then you have that file in
your computer. At which point you can do anything to it you
want.
PDM
That looks to me like an assumption. YOu can do what you want withing copyright law and existing legistation, according to the jurisdiction, and in compliance with the terms of license established by its creators.
It makes sense to me to attempt to define
degrees of opennes in ontology in the same way that perhaps a gpl or
creative commons license defines what can a person do with content and
other products of the mind (attribute, reproduce, distribute,
commercialise, rip, repurpose, change, or not). If Ontology, or some
parts therof, or some versions thereof, can be considered
'intellectual property' of sorts (some people dont like that
term at all) then everything that applies to a creative commons
license or gpl is likely to apply to open ontology, and the
repositories that follow
PH
All true, no doubt. Ontologies in that respect are just like any
other text or image. I don't mean that this issue is irrelevant, but
that there is nothing particular to ontologies as such which is
relevant here.
pdm
Well, if we are exploring 'degrees of openness' for an ontology, and for an ontology repository, then such licenses provide some established examples of this
Pat, maybe ontologies cannot be compiled
and executed, yet, but reasoners, when properly constructed
(....) control and provide inputs to executable
programmes, right?
ph
They can, yes. What is your point?
pdm
I was answering your point below: PH And then its not open source. Its the source thatis open, not the code. But this distinction doesnt apply to ontologies since (AFAIK) they don't get compiled to executables.
pdm
On another note, 'open source' refers to the opennes of the 'source code',
I am interested to hear to what extent there is a direct comparison of ontolgy with source code, that's where all the BOK that relates to FOSS, GPL and CC would become relevant to our work
PDM
Pat
PDM
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 4:17 AM, Pat
Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
At 9:58 PM +0200 4/21/08, Wacek Kusnierczyk wrote:
>Pat Hayes wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> But I dont understand why
>>>
>>> . I don't think it makes
sense to refer to an ontology as being
>>> open (or not).
>>>
>>>
>>> why not?
>>
>> Well, what would it mean to say that a Word document
was 'open'? An
>> ontology is a (document consisting of) a collection of
formal
>> sentences. You can read the document: how much more
'open' can it get?
>
>so why does it make sense to refer to a piece of code as being
open (or
>not)? well, what would it mean to say that a piece of code
was 'open'?
That you can read it, exactly. In contrast to
most bought software, where what you get is not
the code in readable form, but a compiled
executable, which you can run but NOT read.
>a piece of code is a (document consisting of) a collection of
statements
>in a programming language. you can
read/parse/compile/execute the
>document: how much more 'open' can it get? if you *can* read
it, it
>can't pobably get more open (unless 'open' implies some sort of
licence
>for modification, redistribution, etc., so that beng able to read
a
>document would not be all one could do with open documents).
but what
>if you can't? you know it is there, you know people use it,
but you
>can't read it, unless you pay, or unless you're appropriately
employed.
And then its not open source. Its the source that
is open, not the code. But this distinction
doesnt apply to ontologies since (AFAIK) they
don't get compiled to executables.
Pat
>
>i don't think it makes sense to deny that an ontology could be
>meaningfully called 'open' (or not).
>
>vQ
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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
>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC
(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416
office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL
32502
(850)291 0667 cell
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
http://www.flickr.com/pathayes/collections
_________________________________________________________________
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
--
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
*********************************************
_________________________________________________________________
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
--
-- Paola Di Maio School of IT www.mfu.ac.th*********************************************
--
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
*********************************************
_________________________________________________________________
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 (01)
|