John, and all (01)
Of course, like many others I am interested, but some questions were
posed at the last summit, where some ideas related to the repository
project were first asked, and never answered
at least not on the public list (02)
I remember, for example, that my first reaction to the ideas presented
by Mike was
'it is so un-LOD' , meaning: ontologies live on the web, the web is
the natural repository. (03)
(ref. my question at the end of mike dean's presentation on the record) (04)
To create 'another' repository would be redundant, unnecessary, a
waste of resources and unsustainable. (I am sure the above statement
is debatable but in short the above are some key points that have
never been discussed) (05)
To produce a, say, directory of all existing ontologies on the web it
is essential that each resource owner/administrator produces some uri
with some metadata, and updates that (as being discussed in parallel
in other lists), and submits it to the directory index (06)
A welll maintained directory could be easily used as a knowledge base
for individual developers to produce queries, scripts and apis to do
what they want with the ontologies, including knitting conceptual and
semantic lace from (07)
Now, that's probably more realistic 'semantic' view of the repository world (08)
Thus, assuming any of the above points is valid,
the repository effort is going to need some serious rethinking (09)
pdm (010)
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:45 AM, John Graybeal <graybeal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>
> (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (012)
|