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.
Pat
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc.
908-561-3416
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
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
aldo.gangemi@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.loa-cnr.it/gangemi.html
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)
|