Indeed! ... I agree, Cory. (01)
Also ... "agreement" on the requirements may be necessary, but
definitely not sufficient, until someone takes on the "hard work" to
actually write the code to implement these things. (02)
ALL: please join us at the call this Friday () at the regular OOR-team
conference call to talk about it. (03)
Regards. =ppy (04)
p.s. once again, for those who have not had a chance to review the
Summit Communique where OOR was the central theme, please take a look
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Cory Casanave <cory-c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Perhaps the mistake is then thinking of the OOR as "a repository" instead of
>a federation of repositories such that different nodes on the network can have
>different policies about "quality" and "vetting". Then the only question would
>be what are the requirements for an OOR node to be registered in this
>federation, which should be a minor operation. Mechanisms for trust and crowd
>comments on resources should then provide ways to know what repositories to
>trust and those to ignore - based on users criteria, not any authority.
> -Cory Casanave (06)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sio-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:sio-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Yim
> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 3:49 PM
> To: [sio-dev] discussion
> Subject: Re: [sio-dev] Fwd: [ontolog-forum] Sharing and IntegratingOntologies
>> [RonW] The free market of ideas will sort out the great ones and poor ones.
> [ppy] I don't think there is a disagreement here. I trust the choice
> to include some quality assurance process into the requirements, made
> by those who were involved in the earlier discussion, is exactly for
> that reason too, to give the OOR a better chance of survival when
> pitched against the other ontology repositories that are (or will be)
> "out there."
> Regards. =ppy
> -- (07)
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Ron Wheeler
> <rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 10/04/2010 2:47 PM, Todd J Schneider wrote:
>>>> Horribly bureaucratic process.
>>> Possibly, but given what passes for an 'ontology' today suggests
>>> that some processes are needed. One goal of the OOR is to promote
>>> best practices. We expect some of these best practices to be
>>> represented/implemented in the OOR 'Horribly bureaucratic processes'.
>>> For example, provenance. Many (perhaps most) ontologies fail to
>>> provide the provenance for the development of the terms and
>>> relations that occur in the ontology. So that if someone is
>>> looking for a 'good' ontology, what evidence will there be
>>> to justify a decision to use one ontology over another.
>> The same process that is used to select software tools.
>> 1) The reputation of the organization producing the ontology
>> 2) Peer reviews
>> 3) Successful applications built using the ontologies
>> 4) Organizations that have adopted the ontology as a standard
>> If you are in charge of a multimillion dollar software project that will
>> rely on ontology, you will be very careful which ones you select.
>> If you are supplying the DoD with goods or services and need to
>> interface to their purchasing system you will use the ontology that they
>> pick for their system.
>>>> 'The only criteria for submitting an ontology to a central repository
>>>> should be some claim on the namespace'
>>> Well, I do think the OOR is not attempting to provide ego support.
>>> The value of ontologies is, and will be, the ability to use them
>>> independent of their originating source/sponsor/creator.
>> Nothing to do with ego. I am only concerned about namespace collisions
>> and the ability to support as many ontology sources as possible with the
>> least confusion.
>>>> 'I should be able to submit any ontology that I want as long as I
>>>> supply the minimal metadata to permit the OOR to index it.'
>>> Such minimal criteria will prolong the creation/propagation
>>> of poor quality ontologies and reinforce the fragmentation
>>> and duplication of efforts that currently takes place in
>>> this area.
>> Exactly. A monopoly on ideas is never a good way to support innovation.
>> The free market of ideas will sort out the great ones and poor ones.
>>> Todd (08)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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)