[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] [Quality] What means "open" in "Open Ontology Repo

To: "'Ontology Summit 2008'" <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Patrick Cassidy" <pat@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 01:22:19 -0400
Message-id: <085901c888b8$09e965b0$1dbc3110$@com>

Just to add: I would also object to ii, because it would exclude locally developed ontologies that are precisely aligned with some foundation ontology maintained in the OOR and therefore highly reusable and integratable with others.


I’m not sure what ‘transparent’ in iii. means.  I would include as a metric of an ontology how well documented it is.  As a crude first approximation, the average number of words in the comment field of each ontology element might be calculated, to give potential users a guess as to how difficult it will be to guess the intended meanings of the ontology elements.  The more documentation, the better.  Of course, better organized documentation is also better, but harder to find a metric for.




Patrick Cassidy



cell: 908-565-4053



From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Aldo Gangemi
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 9:20 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2008
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [Quality] What means "open" in "Open Ontology Repository"



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
process AND
(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?





Aldo Gangemi

Senior Researcher
Laboratory for Applied Ontology
Institute for Cognitive Sciences and Technology
National Research Council (ISTC-CNR)
Via Nomentana 56, 00161, Roma, Italy
Tel: +390644161535
Fax: +390644161513


icq# 108370336

skype aldogangemi


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/    (01)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>