The closest thing I'm aware of is Stanford's BioPortal -- see
http://bmir.stanford.edu/projects/view.php/ncbo. (01)
Elisa (02)
John F. Sowa wrote:
> John G, Elisa, Ron,
>
> JG> 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.
>
> The critical issue is to *relate* different ontologies or the
> modules from which ontologies can be built to one another and
> to provide a systematic framework for evaluating them. There
> are many different ontologies that people can pick, but it is
> desirable to have a framework for showing how they are related.
>
> It is also necessary to include reviews, evaluations, and
> comments by actual users of any ontology.
>
> EK> ... we have customers who want to ensure that certain
> > ontologies (even "open source" ontologies) that they elect to
> > depend on are developed and managed in processes similar to
> > those of typical standards bodies...
> >
> > The more important issue I think is one of stewardship --
> > irrespective of where ontologies "reside" from a linked data
> > perspective, one would hope that there is a community of interest
> > that is responsible for evolving and managing that ontology in
> > a way that others can depend on.
>
> That is essential for anything that businesses are going to
> adopt for any mission critical applications.
>
> For relating ontologies and modules, there is no need to "design"
> a system, since there is (and always has been) a natural system
> for relating theories: it's called the Lindenbaum lattice, which
> shows how theories are related to one another as specializations,
> generalizations, or siblings.
>
> Whenever two or more modules are combined to form a larger theory,
> the result is always a common specialization of the starting modules.
> Any deletion of an axiom from a theory makes it more generalized;
> any addition of a nonredundant axiom makes it more specialized.
> For a brief summary of the lattice of theories and its application,
> see Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the following paper:
>
> http://www.jfsowa.com/logic/theories.htm
>
> Since the complete lattice of all conceivable theories is infinite,
> there are many more than anyone would ever document or implement.
> Therefore, I suggest the term 'hierarchy of theories' for those
> that have been documented in the registry.
>
> As far as storing the theories, we need something more than
> a list of links to ontologies scattered across the WWW:
>
> 1. Links to web sites have a notoriously short lifetime, and the
> owners of any given site tend to change or move the contents
> of any page at unpredictable, usually inconvenient times.
> Furthermore, the reviews and evaluations should be linked
> to and from the ontologies.
>
> 2. We need policies for version control, reviewing, evaluating,
> testing, relating, and commenting on ontologies. The policies
> should also standardize the required metadata for each
> contributed ontology, the licensing information, etc.
>
> 3. The metadata, comments, reviews, and evaluations should be
> linked to and from the ontologies, but controls are needed
> to prevent unauthorized modification or deletion of anything.
>
> 4. The repository may be virtual, but the methods of version
> control should ensure that all previous versions of any
> contributed ontology (and metadata) are available under
> their original URIs, independently of where they may be
> physically stored.
>
> RW> If someone already has an open repository where the metadata
> > about an ontology can be uploaded by anyone who wants to and the
> > community can post comments and create links between ontologies,
> > then lets all support that.
>
> There are many good resources available on the WWW, but I am not
> aware of anything that comes close to meeting the above criteria
> for maintaining, evaluating, relating, and organizing an open-ended
> and growing collection of ontologies. If anyone knows of any such
> things, please let us know.
>
> John Sowa
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|