[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: John Graybeal <graybeal@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:45:05 -0800
Message-id: <3B1C2FB8-D789-4665-A24A-69FED48A65EB@xxxxxxxxx>
There are existing projects that are geared toward meeting both these  
goals, are there not?  Many that are putting forth semantic wikis (for  
the purpose of defining semantic concepts in a wiki-like way) and a  
few projects that are targeted (broadly) at a more formal ontology  
presentation space for community ontologies.    (01)

I don't have examples of the first in hand (many are known), but in  
the second we are describing Knoodl (Revelytix), NeOn's work, and the  
(early stage discussions) Open Ontology Repository project (by Ontolog  
group, previously mentioned in the thread). The last is noteworthy  
because many requirements have been defined in public pages.    (02)

I ask because I'm not sure why this group is devoting time discussing  
design of a system, when the interested parties might instead agree on  
basic goals, pick a system, and start work?  Or else I am missing  
something.    (03)

John    (04)

On Jan 12, 2009, at 6:58 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:    (05)

> 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.
> 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".
> 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.
> The less bureaucracy in the wiki, the better. It has worked very well
> for Wikipedia.
> 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.
> Ron
> John F. Sowa wrote:
>> Azamat and Ron,
>> There are two separate issues:
>>  1. Developing the ground rules and policies for an ontology
>>     registry.
>>  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.
>>    (06)

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    (07)

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