Fabian and Bill, (01)
I have suggested that we drop the word 'gatekeeping' as misleading.
A better term is 'caretaker' rather than 'gatekeeper'. I also
like Bill's term 'stewardship'. (02)
FN> Gatekeeping -- at least in the context of this thread -- is exactly
> about the minimal criteria that any ontology needs to meet in order
> to be accepted as part of the repository. (03)
The problem with the word 'gatekeeping' is that it puts the emphasis
on closing the gates and possibly excluding valuable contributions. (04)
BA> There seems to be a lot of worry about gatekeeping. But why
> not simply follow the sourceforge model? (05)
I prefer the openness of the Sourceforge model, but their caretaking
is rather limited. (06)
BA> So, what can an OOR add to this [the Sourceforge model] ?
>
> ... If we go from global gatekeeping to project-based stewardship,
> then don't all these controversies just evaporate? (07)
Very likely, but that's a good basis for further discussion. (08)
John. (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (010)
|