Sorry, I missed pasting the link before pressing the "send" button ...
it should read: (01)
//
ALL: please join us at the call this Friday
(http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/sio-dev/2010-04/msg00049.html) at the
regular OOR-team conference call to talk about it.
// (02)
Regards. =ppy
-- (03)
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Indeed! ... I agree, Cory.
>
> 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.
>
> ALL: please join us at the call this Friday () at the regular OOR-team
> conference call to talk about it.
>
> Regards. =ppy
>
> 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
> at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008_Communique
> --
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Cory Casanave <cory-c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>> Peter,
>> 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
>
>
>> -----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
>> --
>
>
>> 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:
>>>> Ron,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|