You might want to respond to a recent request from Dieter Fensel on the semantic-web-request@xxxxxx list on “data schema / vocabulary / ontology / repositories”.
Here was my response:
From: oor-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oor-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Obrst, Leo J.
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 7:24 PM
To: Dieter Fensel; Linked Data community; semantic-web; OpenOntologyRepository-discussion
Subject: Re: [oor-forum] data schema / vocabulary / ontology / repositories
There are many vocabulary/ontology repository efforts currently, though not just for linked data. You might look at BioPortal, for the biomedical community: http://www.bioontology.org/bioportal. There is the Open Ontology Repository (OOR), which is still emerging: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository, and a number of other mostly early ontology repositories, most of which have briefed at the OOR sessions.
From: semantic-web-request@xxxxxx [mailto:semantic-web-request@xxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dieter Fensel
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 12:16 PM
To: Linked Data community; semantic-web
Subject: data schema / vocabulary / ontology / repositories
for a number of projects I was searching for vocabularies/Ontologies
to describe linked data. Could you please recommend me places
where to look for them? I failed to find a convenient entrance point for such
kind of information. I only found some scattered information here and
Director STI Innsbruck, University of Innsbruck, Austria
phone: +43-512-507-6488/5, fax: +43-512-507-9872
Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation, Information Semantics
lobrst@xxxxxxxxx Information Discovery & Understanding, Command & Control Center
Voice: 703-983-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S H305
Fax: 703-983-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA
>From both workshops the most important issue, IMHO, was related to the idea of a federation of ontology repositories. There was also a heated discussion, particularly at ORES (the ESWC workshop), about BioPortal and how it could support the notion of an OOR. The question was, why having just one technology platform instead of going for a technology independent protocol that could allow anybody to use any technology (BioPortal, Falcons, etc). The idea of just one technology, BioPortal, was not conformable for some of the people attending ORES. There was also a little bit of a misunderstanding about BioPortal; the Bio in BioPortal gives the false impression that it is just for the bio-domain. There is also some confusion about the separation between BioPortal and OOR. The relationship between ontology repositories and ontology editors was also discussed at ORES.
The discussion at SERES (the ISWC workshop) was also about BioPortal and how it could support the notion of a fully federated set of Open Ontology Repositories. In many ways the round table discussion at SERES was very similar to that at ORES. At SERES the issue of usability of ontologies being served from the ontology repositories (accessing them, version control, etc) was also addressed -albeit tangentially.
The final discussion at both workshops was really interesting -and sometimes heated. I would say that from both workshops it was clear that people would like to be able query several repositories at the same time, retrieve, analyze and determine how useful could the retrieved information be for their particular purposes. SPARQL was discussed as an alternative that could in principle facilitate such cross query-ability. I would, my opinion, also say that people would like to have an integrated environment so that they could query across repositories, retrieve and then manipulate in their desktops. There were more papers at ORES than at the ISWC, actually ORES was the most attended ESWC workshop.
We will try to have another OOR related workshop at the ISWC this year; I hope to be able to start working on this somewhere around next week.
Alexander Garcia, Tel.: +49 421 218 64211