[Top] [All Lists]

[ontology-summit] IPR questions relating to the OOR Initiative [was - Re

To: Ontology Summit 2008 <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Peter P. Yim" <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 19:24:19 -0700
Message-id: <481FC153.4010901@xxxxxxxx>
Paola,    (01)

I will respond to your message in-line below. But before I do 
that, I would want to clarify a few things:    (02)

1. As repeatedly stated, Ontolog (a.k.a. "Ontolog Forum"), the 
OntologySummit2008 and the OOR Initiative (hereinafter also 
referred to as "OOR") are all different 'things' ... (and that 
have been very clearly documented; repeated several times during 
the course of the summit F2F meeting too, last week, which I 
thought you were in attendance.) ... See, as an example, such a 
statement (which identifies the difference between the latter 
two) at: 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2008_02_28#nid19ZC     (03)

2. If I understood you correctly, you had issues that "claimed 
IPR" of yours have possibly been infringed upon by individuals 
from the OOR Initiative. Since Mike Dean, Leo Obrst and I were 
the co-conveners of that initiative (and hence we should take 
responsibility to find out more), I was suggesting that you 
should talk to us for clarification off-line (as I did assume 
that your issues had stemmed from misinterpreted or misconstrued 
notions of what you think you heard at the summit F2F or 
understood of the OOR Initiative; or your unfamiliarity with the 
IPR legalese.)    (04)

As a co-convener of [ontolog-forum] I felt it necessary to do it, 
to upkeep the quality of the conversation and the signal-to-noise 
ratio on the forum(s). ... That should, in no way, suggest that 
you have a case (before we investigate), nor does it suggest that 
I, or anyone has infringed on yours, or anybody's IPR!    (05)

3. Not being legal entities, neither Ontolog nor OOR can infringe 
on your copyrights. Some individual has to (even if so.) Of the 
three OOR co-conveners, I suspect Leo and Mike did not even know 
you, or know of your work at the 
"PaolaDiMaio/Towards_OpenOntology" page on Ontolog. While I was 
aware of that writing when you first created it (in Jan.2007) on 
the OntologWiki, it never occurred to me, while starting the OOR 
Initiative, that you were even into "ontology repositories." 
While I am not convinced that you have IPR on "open ontology" 
(above and beyond the copyright of your writing on that page) we 
were out to do "ontology repository" and not "ontology" ("open" 
is the qualifier here, your subject is "ontology," our subject is 
"ontology repository").    (06)

I, for one, did not re-read your writing until the last few days. 
I was definitely not inspired by it to start the OOR Initiative 
(sorry, because it has long been forgotten ... although even if I 
were, that would not have constituted infringement) and 
definitely did not lift text out of your page (this, would have 
constituted infringement, but I didn't do it!) ... Anyhow, I am 
willing to spend time with you to clarify matters if you want, 
and if you still believe you have a case after doing your due 
diligence (I am still giving you the benefit of the doubt.) ... 
Therefore, talk to me then, and stop bothering the rest of the 
community.    (07)

4. Let me repeat one more time, there has been no secret OOR list.    (08)

5. I pointed you to the OOR homepage at: 
... and suggested that you review its content. Have you?    (09)

If not, we can't have this conversation, sorry! Where I come 
from, people are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore (say, if 
you believe I have infringed on your IPR, then you will need to 
show that I have plagiarized your copyrighted work, before you 
can make the claim that I was infringing) the burden of proof is 
on you.    (010)

6. Paola, I think we are already wasting too many people's time 
here. If, after reading through this message and completing your 
due diligence, you still think you have a case, I will set up 
another open archived list for this matter. At least, we won't be 
pushing this exchange into people's inboxes ... while still 
keeping the conversation open, archived, and available for 
everyone to view (and comment, if they want to!)    (011)

... see the rest of my response below.  =ppy
--    (012)

paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx wrote Mon, 5 May 2008 22:31:19 +0700:
> HI Rex and all
> I am waiting for clarification and questions from Peter when he gets back
> I dont have time to repeat the questions! have already sent link to
> all the materials reference in my claim, working on lots of other
> stuff
> 1) OOR 'founders' meeting was called in january, but I have seen no
> public nor private invitation to such a meeting (nowhere I could make
> a contribution based on my prior work on this list and elsewhere (open
> ontology thread and papers). But I may have missed that
> Please point me to the public invitation made by this list to make
> contributions to OOR and to participate in the 'founders meeting',     (013)

[ppy] Public announcement of the OOR Founders Meeting was posted 
at the Ontolog:WikiHomePage, under "News & Announcements" between 
2008.07.16-11:16am PST (about one week before the meeting) and 
2008.07.24-3:54pm PST - see: 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?action=browse&id=WikiHomePage&revision=553    (014)

(the notice was first posted in Revision 553 of that page, and 
taken down in Revision 559 - see: 
)    (015)

 > I would like to know why I am not listed as a founder, ...    (016)

[ppy]  I guess the correct answer would be "you weren't there at 
that certain point in time," ... and nobody even knew you were 
thinking of doing "ontology repositories." [ ... but the question 
  I have for you is: "why does it matter, if you were genuinely 
looking toward making a contribution?" ]    (017)

 > despite the fact that I started 'open ontolgy' discussion
 > on this forum on the topic else, please point me to
 > discussions on this forum that preceded my
 > thread on 'open ontology' and oor, thanks    (018)

[ppy] as I said above, we were out to do "ontology repository" 
and it has not been obvious (to anyone) that you have been 
working in that area.    (019)

Being first to talk about a particular subject on this forum does 
not make that person the owner of the subject in the entire 
domain. The AI folks have started doing the things we are mulling 
over more than 50 years ago (even before the term "ontology" in 
the sense we use it now, was even defined by Tom Gruber in 1992.) 
You might want to refer to Chris Menzel's recent post 
if you are serious about discovering who did what first.    (020)

Our OOR-presentation at the summit F2F (thought you were there) 
did cover some history on OOR related work by the three 
co-conveners, which led to their collaboration (they all pre-date 
Jan.2007, incidentally) - see: 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008/FaceToFaceAgenda#nid1BLS    (021)

(check out slide #4)    (022)

> 2) when discussing OOR questions, I have been told that this is not
> the list to dicuss them, (but another list)    (023)

[ppy]  I did not say "another list" ... I specifically said 
"please take your OOR-Initiative-related issues up with me, Leo 
or Mike off-line." ... see rationale above.    (024)

> ... despite the fact that OO,
> and the derived OOR discussions, generated on the public ontolog list,
> and the summit .     (025)

[ppy]  those assumption, I afraid, have been misconstrued. OOR 
was not derived from your "open ontology" post on the 
OntologWiki. Please refer back to the two responses immediately 
above. [ by the way, despite the best of intents, your statement 
there: "I am reserving right of first academic publication to 
publish in relevant journal" is actually inconsistent with the 
Ontolog IPR policy ... please have it removed. You might consider 
doing your academic publication first before posting it to the 
OntologWiki. ]    (026)

> I have already sent a link to a page where OOR ipr
> seems to be 'pending' (not the same as the list) . please clarify that
> statement.    (027)

[ppy] I am not sure what you are talking about here. If you are 
referring to statements like "the OOR Initiative may take up the 
Apache License for its software," "some Creative Commons License 
may be adopted for hosted contents," "Academic (open source) 
licenses would actually allow people to take the technology and 
make proprietary products out of them," etc. etc.  ... then, 
sure. Ontolog and OOR has been different from the word "go!" and 
will be doing very different things in the future. Again, 
referring to the OOR-presentation on 4/29, OOR, for now, is only 
being incubated in the Ontolog-CWE, no more, no less. The OOR 
community will be an open community, and that community will 
decide their IPR and other policies (although "open" is already a 
pre-requisite, as it is built into their name.)    (028)

> a few other points can be made unless the nature of my complaint
> becomes obvious and rectified (lets not waste time on these silly
> things)    (029)

[ppy] I afraid neither I, nor you, can be sure that you even have 
a case. (I am neither qualified, nor willing to spend time to 
working that out for you unless you do your due diligence.) 
Therefore, I concur that we should not waste our time any further.    (030)

> Peter, I am not accusing you of anything! I am just pointing out
> conflicts in some of the statements over IPR of this list, and
> contradictions on the processes, especially where they should be open
> but for some reason they are not    (031)

[ppy] as I mentioned before, those "conflicts" are probably 
results of misunderstandings and misconstrued notions on your 
part. The process, so far, has been as open as it could possibly 
be (and have been consistently so.)    (032)

> I have been paying closed attention to both ontolog activity and
> development in open ontology
> and I am very intersted to participate in the effort, provided I am
> given the opportunity to do so
> :-)
> PDM    (033)

[ppy]  paying close attention? ... maybe, not enough. If you want 
to keep a closer tab on activities conducted under the auspices 
of Ontolog, you might consider, like some of us do, subscribe to 
the OntologWiki rss feed, and the podcast (besides subscribing to 
the lists) ... and actually go through the material carefully. 
That way, you'll be better informed of what's happening at 
Ontolog (or some of the projects operating in its CWE.) ... As 
far as I know, no one has been denied access or participation, if 
they operate within the bounds of our very simple membership 
policy and IPR policy. That, incidentally, is one of the key 
tenets of "open" (as in the "Open Source Definition") which these 
projects are guided by. ... [ I have personally denied access to 
spammers, and others who did not stay within the clearly stated 
boundaries, though. ]    (034)

Again, if you still want to talk, see 5. & 6. above.    (035)

Regards.  =ppy
--    (036)

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/    (037)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>