[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Ontology Summit 2008 <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:44:36 -0500
Message-id: <47E41024.5020803@xxxxxxxxxxx>
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)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>