in case LOD sounds mystical and/or alien
this is what the semantic web is being made of, fyi
it would be lovely to see some contribution come from this
learned community! (01)
http://linkeddata.org/ (02)
http://www.mkbergman.com/?p=416 (03)
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:04 AM, <paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> John, and all
>
> 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
>
> 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.
>
> (ref. my question at the end of mike dean's presentation on the record)
>
> 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)
>
> 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
>
> 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
>
> Now, that's probably more realistic 'semantic' view of the repository world
>
> Thus, assuming any of the above points is valid,
> the repository effort is going to need some serious rethinking
>
>
> pdm
>
> 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
>>
>>
> (04)
--
Paola Di Maio (05)
University of Strathclyde, UK
**********************************
Forthcoming (06)
i-Semantics 2009, 2 - 4 September 2009, Graz, Austria. www.i-semantics.tugraz.at (07)
SEMAPRO 2009, Malta
http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/RegistrationSEMAPRO09.html (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|