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:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository
... 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:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?action=history&id=WikiHomePage
) (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
(http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/2008-05/msg00008.html)
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)
|