I would suggest a 2 pronged approach. The formal ontology repository
should have a proper governance structure and peer review by whatever
body is setup to do that. (01)
The wiki should be more like Wikipedia with the emphasis on collecting
ontologies and building up a set of documentation about each one,
comments from users, links to compatible ontologies, links to
alternatives and comments from reviewers regardless of their "officialness". (02)
The formal repository governing body should find this a useful resource
both as a source of candidate ontologies and as a source of potential
SMEs and reviewers. It will also identify topics and ideas that the
official reviewers may want to include in their analysis. (03)
The less bureaucracy in the wiki, the better. It has worked very well
I doubt if we would have more vandalism than Wikipedia does, although we
do get some heated discussion here.
If it does become a problem, the easiest way to fix that is by requiring
people to get permission to have access to writing.
Wikipedia has not had to resort to that and they draw from a much wider
audience with all kinds of commercial and competitive interests. (04)
John F. Sowa wrote:
> Azamat and Ron,
> There are two separate issues:
> 1. Developing the ground rules and policies for an ontology
> 2. Setting up a registry and maintaining the contributed ontologies.
> These two goals can be pursued in parallel, but #1 should be started
> first. Then an implementation, #2, would give us further experience
> and ideas about how to develop #1 further.
> RW> I have used MediaWiki (Wikipedia's wiki tool) for a couple of
> > sites and it is easy to set up and fairly intuitive to use.
> That could be a reasonable way to get started.
> RW> We could also just do this on the Wikipedia site if they do
> > not object to the amount of pages that this would add.
> The goals, procedures, and ultimate product are very different
> from the Wikipedia, so it would be better to keep it separate,
> although some of the Wikipedia tools may be useful.
> AA> I'd agree, being grateful for this, if the ontolog-forum has
> > problem with this. But what about other "stakeholders"?
> The people who subscribe to ontolog-forum have expressed a great
> deal of knowledge about and interest in such issues. They should
> be encouraged to participate. But the participants in the
> registry project need not be identical to the set of subscribers
> to ontolog-forum.
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (07)