ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Doug Holmes <dholmes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:57:47 -0800
Message-id: <67185720-8A94-4EF0-B652-7CC8A556C75C@xxxxxxx>
+1
On Jan 12, 2009, at 12:45 PM, John Graybeal wrote:    (01)

> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> John
>
>
> On Jan 12, 2009, at 6:58 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>    (02)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (03)

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