[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "Ontology Summit 2008" <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 23:47:35 -0400
Message-id: <c09b00eb0805052047k577d0d07td776f789bbc90d78@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear  Peter    (01)

thanks a lot for your lengthy reply, and apologies if my claim is
causing you anxiety and undue stress, it is not my intention to give
you a breakdown.    (02)

I think we all enjoy the discussion and arguments of the Ontolog forum
and I for one was really happy to meet everybody at the Summit so I am
thankful to you and  Leo for the opportunity.    (03)

My intention is to address possible lack of clarity of the facts and
policy surrounding the OOR initiative, and related idiosyncrasies that
are emerging from the communique and surrounding discussions, possibly
due to thefact that some earlier stuff already started was 'forgotten'
(oh my), and the process of this OOR development has not been in line
with other Ontolog stuff, which is unusual, therefore some of the
stuff in there does not make sense, however there has been no real
opportunity to discuss in the appropriate level of detail what it is
being proposed to do on a separate list    (04)

Just to give you an example of what does not appear to make sense    (05)

1, OOR is a separate thing and nothing to do with the Ontolog and the summit
2. OOR is the topic of this year summit and the communique is
(supposed to) represent the contribution of this community to the
topic    (06)

can you see the conflict between the two lines above. could you explain?    (07)

I indeed maintain that my contribution to the OOR discussion lies in
my open ontology work, of which OOR reflects some of its content,  and
I maintain that my work  should be referenced appropriately. (also
work published outside the Ontolog wiki in this respect btw)    (08)

I also maintain that by virtue of such contribution, I should have
been added/invited to the founders meeting, and that did not happen
because invitations to join OOR founders meeting were dispatched
selectively, and did not reach the public list members via an email
with appropriate subject line as other ontolog events, which is
unusual.    (09)

I also maintain the current work around OOR as described in communique
presents many conflicts with prior work, and presents several
conceptual and semantic inconsistencies, possibly derived from such
idiosyncrasies in the process above    (010)

Of course I cannot claim ownership of Open Ontology, but I claim
ownership of open ontology discussions and papers which I have
contributed to this list,  which have been taken either verbatim or
presented with modified wording as contribution to OOR discussions.    (011)

I can make a much lengthier argument  - and will do so with the
appropriate representation
if that becomes necessary, but so far I am satisfied by the
acknowledgments of the issues raised by other members of the
community, and look forward to developments and rectification where is
due, as you deem appropriate, and that any copyright infringement of
derived efforts such as separate OOR initiatives under a different IPR
policy, where they draw from public discussions in open forum, will be
constrained by existing IPR policies and copyright ownership and other
claims of attribution    (012)

Please do not take any of the above as a threat, but as free advice!    (013)

I very much look forward to continuing the discussions on OO and OOR ,
in whatever forum you deem appropriate - and to take up related domain
and policy questions - although I am still unclear as to why these are
being segregated from the main list, which is where most of our public
discussions take place    (014)

Btw, last time I clicked on the OOR list link it did not allow me to
join the list, can you please point me?    (015)

cheers    (016)

PDM    (017)

btw - conveners are individuals - afaik they are liable for
infringement of copyright of whatever they convene, but no, no, lets
not go down that tedious path which then becomes ligation of IP
jurisprudence! that's quite bitter stuff - I think Open Ontology and
OOR stuff is much much sweeter to talk about    (018)

On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 10:24 PM, Peter P. Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Paola,
>  I will respond to your message in-line below. But before I do
>  that, I would want to clarify a few things:
>  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
>  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.)
>  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!
>  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").
>  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.
>  4. Let me repeat one more time, there has been no secret OOR list.
>  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?
>  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.
>  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!)
>  ... see the rest of my response below.  =ppy
>  --
>  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',
>  [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:
>  (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
>  )
>   > I would like to know why I am not listed as a founder, ...
>  [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?" ]
>   > 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
>  [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.
>  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.
>  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:
>  (check out slide #4)
>  > 2) when discussing OOR questions, I have been told that this is not
>  > the list to dicuss them, (but another list)
>  [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.
>  > ... despite the fact that OO,
>  > and the derived OOR discussions, generated on the public ontolog list,
>  > and the summit .
>  [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. ]
>  > 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.
>  [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.)
>  > 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)
>  [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.
>  > 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
>  [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.)
>  > 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
>  [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. ]
>  Again, if you still want to talk, see 5. & 6. above.
>  Regards.  =ppy
>  --
>  _________________________________________________________________
>  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/
>    (019)

Paola Di Maio
School of IT
*********************************************    (020)

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/    (021)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>