Dear Fabian, (01)
Well if I was really doing all of those, then I wonder why you would
want to put it in the OOR, and at most you would probably want to put
a link in rather than the content. But personally, even for this case,
I would rather know what was out there and under what terms than ban
something that might be just what someone is looking for, at what for
them is a good price for the purpose they have in mind. (02)
But I'm rather liberal :-) (03)
Regards (04)
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 (05)
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (06)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Fabian
> Neuhaus
> Sent: 17 March 2008 18:04
> To: Ontology Summit 2008
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [Quality] What means "open" in "Open
> Ontology Repository"
>
>
> Dear Matthew,
>
> Just to make your position clear let's consider an extreme:
> let's assume
> that I develop an ontology which meets none of the suggested criteria:
> - I have developed the ontology in private
> - nobody but me is allowed to make decisions about changes
> - the ontology is written in a proprietary formal language
> - the ontology is password protected and can only be read by
> people of
> my choice
> - the ontology is published under a license that would allow me to
> charge a fee from people who use it
>
> In your opinion, should I be allowed to store the ontology in
> the OOR?
> Or would you suggest that any ontology in the repository has
> to meet at
> least some of the suggested criteria?
>
> Best
> Fabian
>
> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Dear Fabian,
> >
> > It might be strictly more correct to say that I object to
> all of them.
> >
> > My view is that we should be permissive about what we let in, but
> > should require clear statements on whether or not (or to
> what extent)
> > the conditions below are met. It seems clear to me that different
> > people have different priorities amongst these conditions, and if
> > we were to insist on all of them rigorously, it is likely that the
> > repository would be empty, or as good as empty.
> >
> > So I recommend that we let people and organizations choose which
> > compromises they wish to make on the ideal, on an informed basis.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > 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
> >
> > Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
> > Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.shell.com
> > http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf
> Of Fabian
> >> Neuhaus
> >> Sent: 17 March 2008 17:19
> >> To: Ontology Summit 2008
> >> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [Quality] What means "open" in "Open
> >> Ontology Repository"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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).
> >>
> >> It seems to me that this discussion won't be resolved easily.
> >> If nobody
> >> objects, I will put it on the list of topics to be
> discussed on the
> >> Ontological Summit during the "Quality and Gatekeeping" section.
> >>
> >> Best
> >> Fabian
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Pat Hayes wrote:
> >>
> >>> At 12:09 AM +0000 3/15/08, <matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Dear Pat,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> The first. Only the ISO has this absurd policy of
> >>>>> charging cash for standards;
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> MW: There are others.
> >>>>
> >>>> MW: But lets be precise about this. The problem has its
> >>>> roots in ISO essentially seeing itself as a publishing house.
> >>>> That at least is how it gets its income. The up side is that it
> >>>> does not charge to participate in standards development. Try the
> >>>> OMG charges if you want to see how much that can be, even if
> >>>> their specs are free to users (or W3C for that matter).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> I don't see why that matters, in the case of ontologies.
> >>>
> >> The process
> >>
> >>> that gave rise to ontology is really not of any relevance: what
> >>> matters is the final product and the ability to use it.
> >>>
> >> That is what
> >>
> >>> we should be focused upon.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> MW: Now I think that ISO is outdated in thinking like this, and
> >>>> many of us are trying to persuade them to change, but that is
> >>>> still the current situation.
> >>>>
> >>>> MW: Now, in ISO TC184/SC4 we have managed to get dispensation
> >>>> to make all the computer interpretable stuff, i.e. what you need
> >>>> to implement the standard. So suppose someone makes their
> >>>> OWL ontology available free, but then publishes a book through
> >>>> a publisher (who naturally charges for it) explaining its use.
> >>>> How would you see that?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> If the same source published the book and the ontology,
> and if the
> >>> book was the only 'manual' or documentation available, I
> think this
> >>> would be close to inadmissible, and certainly bad practice.
> >>>
> >> The issue
> >>
> >>> here is not charging for the book, but withholding what should be
> >>> part of the openly accessible ontology itself.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> How would that be different from what
> >>>> ISO TC 184/SC4 does.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> moreover, I would
> >>>>> not say that Matthew's interpretation of 'open'
> >>>>> is universally accepted. The W3C is not open in
> >>>>> this sense, for example.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> MW: Indeed I would certainly NOT see W3C as open. This concerned
> >>>> some enough that they moved to OASIS.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> But the results of the W3C process are openly available to anyone
> >>> without any payment, which for standard adoption is
> surely the main
> >>> point. Agencies pay a membership fee to join the W3C, but
> >>>
> >> that makes
> >>
> >>> sense to me: parties that are interested enough to want to
> >>>
> >> influence
> >>
> >>> a standard for commercial reasons tend to be those that
> can easily
> >>> afford such membership fees. And the process is 'open' in
> the sense
> >>> of being conducted in public: all the email archives, minutes of
> >>> meetings. etc. are publicly available and archived.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> >Is the OOR supposed restricted to ontologies that are
> >>>>>
> >> developed in an
> >>
> >>>>> >open process and come with very light weight copyright
> >>>>> licenses (e.g. *
> >>>>> >*Creative Commons Attribution )?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Certainly the latter. Lets take a stand on this.
> >>>>> It does not eliminate ISO participation, but it
> >>>>> does require them to make any relevant standards
> >>>>> freely available. They can do this, and have done
> >>>>> it in the past.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> MW: Indeed, see above.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Putting something into the OOR
> >>>>> should make it automatically available for access
> >>>>> and use without restriction; like the GNU
> >>>>> licences, it should not permit other copyright
> >>>>> restrictions to be 'passed through' its open
> >>>>> policy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> >Or is OOR open for all ontologies that are developed in an
> >>>>> open process
> >>>>> >regardless of their copyright license?
> >>>>> >Would the OOR be open for ontologies that are developed and
> >>>>> maintained
> >>>>> >by a group of people who don't want to participate in
> >>>>>
> >> an open process
> >>
> >>>>> >but are willing to publish their ontology as a freely
> >>>>> available resource
> >>>>> >for the community?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have no problem with that part. We should
> >>>>> permit ontologies that were constructed by one
> >>>>> person in total privacy, or written on stone
> >>>>> tablets by God, as long as they are freely
> >>>>> available for public use without restriction.
> >>>>> This is what 'open' means in 'open cyc', for
> >>>>> example.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> MW: I think the lack of an open process is a problem
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Why? If someone writes a useful ontology, or one is
> developed by a
> >>> small team, what possible harm can there be in making
> this publicly
> >>> available?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> ,
> >>>> but I'm actually prepared to be more permissive.
> >>>> For most of these issues above, I think the most
> >>>> important thing is to be clear about what the
> >>>> situation is. So there is a clear statement as to
> >>>> whether:
> >>>> - There is an open process for development
> >>>> - How much do you have to pay to participate in that process?
> >>>> - What is free, and what is not, and how much that is
> >>>>
> >>>> MW: I do not suffer from the illusion that there are
> >>>> no costs in developing an ontology. The only real
> >>>> question is what is the business model?
> >>>> - pay to join the development organization
> >>>> - donate own time and resources to contribute
> >>>> - sell services based on deliverables
> >>>> - pay for deliverables
> >>>> - ...
> >>>>
> >>>> MW: In fact what I dislike most are the organizations
> >>>> that charge for membership to participate in development.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Well, in defense of the W3C, it has managed to extract a quite
> >>> remarkable amount of participation from me without my
> paying a red
> >>> cent. On the other hand, I havn't been paid a red cent, either.
> >>>
> >>> Pat
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> 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/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/
> (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (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)
|