Peter (01)
I looked at the links and liked the combination of my and your
suggestions. (02)
The Opensource.org link [1] is most relevant.
The Creative Commons link [2] is relevant except for restriction that
products of commercial nature can not be built upon open license
products that would limit the field of work only to nonprofits? For
example I can buy Linux and develop a commercial product on it.
Therefore the restriction of noncommercial only will be a limiting
factor.
The OASIS [3] is an open standards developer organization(SDO), but the
link does not allude to openness definition it only talks about open
tech committee meetings etc. (03)
Summarizing, without spending too much time on definitions, let us adopt
your suggested combinations and proceed, comments from everyone are
welcome but we need deadlines to close these preliminaries. (04)
Similarly, for example there is no need to use the distributed or
federated aspects of open architectures if one can do what one needs
within one organization, and within one instance, but why restrict the
architecture from being open and connectable to other repositories. (05)
Thanks. (06)
Ravi (07)
(Dr. Ravi Sharma) Senior Enterprise Architect (08)
Vangent, Inc. Technology Excellence Center (TEC) (09)
8618 Westwood Center Drive, Suite 310, Vienna VA 22182
(o) 703-827-0638, (c) 313-204-1740 www.vangent.com
P.S. As always all such views as these are my own professional opinions,
not necessarily supported or denied by any associated organization. What
is more as I learn more and more technologies and knowledge is
assimilated by me, I am also entitled to change my previously stated
positions, and for that reason learning is most welcome activity. (010)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Yim
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 7:24 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2008
Subject: [ontology-summit] [Summit-Focus] The 'Open' in 'Open
OntologyRepository' - what is within scope, and what out? (011)
Although not 'officially' a part of the Ontology Summit 2008
discussion, those of us who straddle both the OntologySummit2008 and
the OpenOntologyRepository (OOR) initiatives would have recognized
that we have just (in the last 2~3 weeks) spent quite a bit of time
defining (for the OOR effort) what an "Ontology Repository" is. [See
thread at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/oor-forum/2008-02/msg00071.html
] (012)
Ken Baclawski pointed out, correctly, during the Feb-7 Launch Event,
that while we had taken so much time to mull over what is an "ontology
repository" and what is an "ontology registry", we hadn't quite put in
any time to delineate what is (or isn't) "open" (... and this is the
response: let's discuss it here, online.) (013)
In Ravi Sharma's earlier post (I'm chaneling that part of the
discussion over here, Ravi!),
(ref.
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/2008-02/msg00011.html#nid0
6
) he wrote: (014)
//
[RaviSharma] What I understand from Word OPEN is that it is to be
decided by this Community that: (015)
OPEN implies: (016)
Open standards based (017)
Open access to all who can be identified or authenticated (018)
Open access to all members of community who want to post comments
suggestions and opinions (019)
Open access to all trusted and authenticable communities (at least
Read only)
// (020)
I also remarked, during the Feb-7 launch, that, (consistent with
Ontolog's IPR Policy [0]) would want OPEN to mean: (021)
Open standard & open access (which I concur) (022)
Open technology - which includes licensing like those in open
source software [1], (023)
Open knowledge - which includes open content licensing [2] (024)
Open collaboration - which includes open and transparent process [3],
and (025)
an Open mind from everyone invloved [4]. (026)
My favorite references would come from: (027)
[0] The Ontolog IPR Policy -
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid32 (028)
[1] The Open Source definition -
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php (029)
[2] Creative Commons -
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/ (030)
[3] The OASIS process -
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php (031)
[4] this will have to come from each one of us. (032)
... and, rather than reinventing the wheel, I propose we default to
some version of the above, well documented references. (033)
Thoughts, comments, ... (034)
Thanks & regards. =ppy (035)
P.S. I believe this conversation is useful to both OntologySummit2008
and the OpenOntologyRepository (OOR) efforts (and probably more so to
the latter.) =ppy
-- (036)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2008/
Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (037)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2008/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (038)
|