Fabian, (01)
Thank you very much for the nice summary. (02)
> == Summary: Gatekeeping/ Minimal Requirements ==
>
> 1. Openness (see below)
> 2. /The ontology is expressed in a formal language with a well-defined
> syntax./
> 3. /The authors of the ontology provide the required metadata. /
> 4. /The ontology has a clearly specified and clearly delineated scope.
> /5. /Successive versions of an ontology are clearly identified.
> /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.
> / (03)
I have a question about #7, in particular vis-a-vis #2. Are there
formal languages that allow terms in an ontology not to have unique
IDs? Or is this talking about uniqueness *across* ontologies in OOR. (04)
If it is the requirement of uniqueness across all ontologies, then I
strongly disagree -- and I suspect many will to, for the same reason
that the OBO Foundry orthogonality principle doesn't apply here. (05)
If it is within a single ontology, then it is already implied by #2,
and is not needed. (06)
Natasha (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)
|