That is exactly why I suggested the wiki. Forum conversations are always
going to wander off-topic and interesting ideas get thrown on the table.
The Wiki has a permanence to it and a linked structure can evolve
without losing previous thoughts and conclusions or points of discussion.
However, I have not volunteered to be the secretary/editor of the forum.
I do not have the time for the former and am not qualified for the latter. (01)
If you think that you have something important to say that does move the
project toward a better understanding about what an ontology is or the
meta data that best describes an ontology, contribute it to the wiki and
make a reference to your contribution in the forum if you want to make a
point or let people know that a stick has been put in the ground. (02)
This will help project much more than thousands of scraps of arguments
and counter arguments that have to be revisited to decide if the forum
has reached any actionable conclusions or a consensus on any topic. (03)
Both vehicles will help but discussion without end or a collaborative
document is much harder for anyone to use.
A wiki page with ideas clearly stated and challenges in the related
discussion section is much easier to use for further work. (04)
Ron (05)
Peter Yim wrote:
> All,
>
>
> While this has been an interesting conversation ... it has,
> nonetheless, not stayed focused on the subject matter, which I assume,
> was the purpose of Steve Ray when started the thread in the hope of
> developing the discourse on this year's Ontology Summit theme, which
> reads: "OntologySummit2009: Toward Ontology-based Standards." [0, 0a]
>
> For those (who weren't able to participate earlier) who are interested
> in the last few year's Ontology Summit theme (all of which were
> revisited in this conversation),
>
> 2006: the Upper Ontology Summit [1]
> 2007: Ontology, Taxonomy, Folksonomy: Understanding the Distinctions [2]
> 2008: Toward an Open Ontology Repository [3]
>
> In particular, anyone who believes in the value and efficacy of an
> open ontoplogy repository are encouraged to look over the work of the
> (independent, but also incubated here in the Ontolog collaborative
> work environment) ongoing "Open Ontology Repository (OOR)" initiative
> [4] (which was actually started before last year's summit) and,
> hopefully, join up with those folks in their effort.
>
> References:
>
> [0] --- http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2009
> [0a] - OntologySummit2009 Launch Event -
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2009_01_15
> [1] --- http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit
> [1a] -
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit/UosJointCommunique
> [2] --- http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007
> [2a] - http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007_Communique
> [3] --- http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008
> [3a] - http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008_Communique
> [4] --- http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR
>
>
> Thanks & regards. =ppy
> --
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Ron Wheeler
> <rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> You have proposed using a repository.
>> There is one now set up.
>>
>> No one has added any actual ontologies since it has been set up.
>>
>> The endless discussions continue on but none of the main contributors
>> are willing to put a stake in the ground.
>>
>> Show me the money!!!
>>
>> Start entering some examples of metadata for existing ontologies, on the
>> wiki.
>>
>> Let us see if we agree on metadata.
>> Let us see if we can have a factual discussion about competing
>> ontologies that goes past the emotional "I like mine better than
>> yours." or worse yet "I think that my criteria for choosing a way to
>> chose ontologies will be better than yours."
>>
>> If the ideas expressed in this forum are to be any use to humanity
>> beyond making the current writer feel better about himself, we have to
>> start deciding on some generally held views and get them documented.
>>
>> The particular wiki software is not as easy to use as others and I have
>> not even looked at polls or surveys yet,
>> None the less, it is sufficient for our current needs.
>> If we get a lot of content and a lot of contributors and visitors, we
>> will be in a good place to ask for funding.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> (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)
|