Il giorno 17/mar/08, alle ore 19:43, Pat Hayes ha scritto:
At 1:19 PM -0400 3/17/08, Fabian Neuhaus wrote:
Okay, let me try to summarize. Everybody, please let me know if I
misrepresented your position.
We are discussing the scope of the OOR, thus the minimal requirements an
ontology has to meet.
Peter Yim and Ravi Sharma suggest the following:
(i) the ontology is based on open standards AND
(ii) an ontology that is created and maintained in a cooperative process
that is, in principle, open to everybody who wants to participate AND
(iii) an ontology that is created and maintained in a transparent
(iv) the ontology is accessible to all who can be identified or
authenticated (at least Read only) AND
(v) the ontology is available under a license that includes virtually no
restrictions on the use and distribution of the ontology.
[I assume that a standard is considered to be "open" if and only if it
meets analogs of criteria (ii)-(v), FN]
Matthew West objects to (v).
Pat Hayes objects to (ii) and (iii).
For clarification, I don't object to (ii) and (iii), but I do think that these should not be required. Insisting on any conditions on the process that gave rise to the ontology adds a considerable burden both to the cost of creating an ontology and to the task of checking its credentials, and is completely irrelevant to the users of the ontology. Very few, if any, extant published ontologies fully meet conditions (ii) and (iii) above. Ontologies are not standards: they are more analogous to pieces of software. No software has ever been created by a process satisfying condition (ii).
I agree: why should the effort of a lone wolf be kept out? :)
BTW, consider that there is no real lone wolf in the ontology wilderness: all of us are actually working on the basis of previous work, which is a (weak?) form of collaboration. What is otherwise scientific literature for?
Laboratory for Applied Ontology
Institute for Cognitive Sciences and Technology
National Research Council (ISTC-CNR)
Via Nomentana 56, 00161, Roma, Italy