Dear Fabian, (01)
See a couple of corrections below. (02)
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
> > 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 (=
> > 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):
> > 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
> > 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/
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)