Some of the requirements that Barry mentions haven't been discussed yet. I add
them to the list on our summary page, continuing the enumeration: (01)
6. The ontology has passed certain dynamic tests.
7. The ontology has unique IDs for its terms.
8. The ontology is adequately labeled.
9. The ontology has a plurality of users. (02)
The summary page is at
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008_QualityAndGatekeeping (03)
Fabian (04)
phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> Barry summarized very well what the goal of gatekeeping is: "if an OOR
>>> is to be useful, then potential users need to have reliable
>>> expectations as to what it will contain".
>>>
> Pat Hayes:
>
>> It seems to me that the best way - perhaps the only way - to
>> determine this, is to read the ontology itself (or to put it through
>> more dynamic tests, such as inputting to a reasoner or trying its
>> effect on a battery of test cases.) What more does Barry expect by
>> way of telling a potential user what it will contain?
>>
>
> Barry Smith:
> My idea is that the OOR gatekeeper function would include basic things like:
>
> a guarantee that the ontology has passed certain dynamic tests
> a guarantee that the ontology is open source
> a guarantee that the ontology has unique IDs for its terms and acceptable
> versioning policies
> a guarantee that the ontology is adequately labeled
> a guarantee that the ontology has a plurality of users
>
> The OBO Foundry (http://obofoundry.org) is working towards a situation where
> Foundry ontologies will have been peer reviewed for accuracy as
>representations
> of the corresponding domain; in the even longer run towards a situation where
> they will be one unique recommended Foundry ontology for each domain
>biomedical
> domain.
>
> PH:
>
>>> The question that we need to
>>> answer is: In order to archive this goal of gatekeeping, do we have to
>>> ban all ontologies that don't meet (i-v)?
>>>
>> Clearly not. All this is required is open access to the actual
>> ontology. IMO this is the only criterion whose necessity is worth
>> serious discussion.
>>
>
> BS:
> Clearly so. If all that is required is open access to the actual ontology,
>then
> there is no need for the ontology to be, in addition, a member of the OOR. It
>can
> be just somewhere on the web.
>
> Repositories built thus far with loose or strictly syntactic gatekeeping
> criteria, e.g. the great http://www.daml.org/ontologies/ or the partially
>silly
> http://www.schemaweb.info/, actually make life harder for potential users.
>Thus
> the former has (when I last looked) 39 different ontologies for 'agent', all
> covering more or less the same ground (some of them call agents 'agents',
>others
> call them 'Agents', etc.).
>
> BS
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/
> (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (06)
|