[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Ontology Summit 2008 <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Ontology Summit 2008'" <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Barry Smith <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:42:06 -0400
Message-id: <20080318204238.PBRL1365.mta11.adelphia.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I tend to agree that we should modify ii. It is generally better that 
ontologies are built by small terms (including single-member teams). 
But then generally, I think, maintence should allow a more open process.    (01)

We tried to define a metric for intelligibility of ontology elements here:
I think 'transparent' in iii. is intended to mean: the ontology 
development process is publicly documented e.g. by being carried out 
through use of email fora which are web-accessible to all. This is 
the policy maintained for example by the OBO Foundry (http://obofoundry.org).
BS    (02)

At 01:22 AM 3/18/2008, Patrick Cassidy wrote:
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>         boundary="----=_NextPart_000_085A_01C88896.82D7C5B0"
>Content-Language: en-us
>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
>MICRA, Inc.
>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/    (03)

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/    (04)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>