ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] [Quality] Gatekeeping proposal

To: <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: <matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 00:09:18 -0000
Message-id: <808637A57BC3454FA660801A3995FA8F06A2D117@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear Fabian,    (01)

See a couple of corrections below.    (02)

Regards    (03)

Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
Registered in England and Wales
Registered number: 621148
Registered office: Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom    (04)

Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/    (05)


> >
> >     Dear All
> >     I would like to kick off the discussion about Quality and
> >     Gatekeeping. The Ontology Summit 2008 is only a few 
> weeks away and
> >     there is much to do! As the title of the discussion thread
> >     suggests, we have two tasks: We need to develop a set of minimal
> >     requirements that any ontology needs to fulfill in order to be
> >     accepted as part of the Open Ontology Repository (= 
> Gatekeeping).
> >     Further, we need to discuss the different ways the quality of an
> >     ontology within the OOR can be evaluated and what kind 
> of services
> >     the OOR needs to provide to support these kinds of evaluation.
> >
> >     I suggest that we start with the gate keeping 
> discussion: What are
> >     the minimal criteria that an ontology needs to meet in 
> order to be
> >     accepted as part of the OOR? I would suggest to set the 
> bar rather
> >     low and only focus on criteria that ensure that it will be easy
> >     for the community to use the ontology as resource.
> >
> >     Here is a list of requirements that would do that (some of these
> >     principles are adopted from the OBO Foundry):  
> <!--[endif]-->**  
> >
> > MW: Well you could consider me as the "custodian" of ISO 15926 for 
> > these purposes, so let us see how these apply here. 
> Actually the first 
> > one is easily the toughest.
> >
> >     *1. The ontology is open and available to be used under the
> >     Creative Commons Attribution license without any 
> constraint other
> >     than (a) its origin must be acknowledged and (b) it is not to be
> >     altered and subsequently redistributed under the original name.*
> >     <!--[endif]-->
> >
> >     This criterion is a specification of what "open" in 
> "Open Ontology
> >     Repository" means.  
> >
> > MW: Not really, at least  if it is, all we know is that an open 
> > ontology is an ontology that is open and ....
> >
> > MW:  What being open means in standardisation circles is 
> that there is 
> > an open process for its development and the resolution of issues 
> > raised against it, which, in principle at least, anyone can 
> take part 
> > in. It is this anyone being able to take part which makes 
> it open. ISO 
> > 15925 meets this definition of open.    (06)

MW: That's ISO 15926 of course.
> >
> > MW: Now ISO 15926 is of course ISO copyright and certainly does not 
> > have a Creative Commons Attribution license, but you can access the 
> > computer interpretable form from the internet for free, and 
> indeed the 
> > basic documentation, though you have to pay for the full 
> > documentation. It might also be a problem if you made a 
> copy available 
> > (republishing) without authority, rather than pointing to the 
> > original. Is it your intention to exclude material of this 
> kind? Or do 
> > you intend to modify the requirement?
> 
> I think this topic is large enough for an own discussion thread. I'll 
> send a separate email to the list.
> 
> >     2. *The ontology is expressed in a formal language with a
> >     well-defined syntax. *
> >
> >     Obviously, an ontology is going to be more valuable to a large
> >     audience if it is expressed in a widely used formal 
> language, but
> >     the repository is not restricted to those.  The authors are
> >     required to provide a reference to a document that specifies a
> >     grammar of the formal language.   <!--[endif]--> 
> >
> > MW: Well ISO 15926 is available in EXPRESS and OWL both of 
> which have 
> > appropriate documentation. 
> >
> >     3. *The authors of the ontology provide the required metadata.*
> >
> >     Pat Hayes and Michael Gruninger are championing a 
> discussion about
> >     the ontology of ontologies and metadata. This requirement will
> >     enforce the use of the result of this discussion since 
> it ensures
> >     that no ontology can be submitted without providing the 
> necessary
> >     metadata. The goal is to enable users to quickly survey the
> >     available ontologies and find the right ones for them.  
> >
> > MW: You need to say what that is, and it needs to be 
> reasonable, but 
> > this should  be a problem.
> >
> This clause is a only a place holder until we know the results the 
> discussion about ontology of ontologies and metadata. Why do 
> you expect 
> this requirement to be a problem? Or is a "not" missing above?    (07)

MW: Well spotted. Indeed a "not" is missing.    (08)


_________________________________________________________________
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/    (09)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>