Hi,
This discussion on ‘sharing’ versus ‘re-usable/re-using’ is very interesting. During the last few years, particularly due to the efforts by NSF, NIST and European
Union through the Research Data Alliance (RDA https://rd-alliance.org/rda-third-plenary-meeting.html ) these types of discussion has become increasingly common in many meetings. During these discussions it has become increasingly clear that needs for ‘sharing’
and ‘re-using’ are not the same. Requirement for ‘sharing’ may be (for some) as simple as creating a public resource for ontology downloads with features mentioned in (1) & (2) below. But for ‘re-using’ one need to create a ontology/terminology that can be
readily adopted or re-tuned to meet the needs of new or otherwise unforeseen use-cases preferable across many disciplines.
I would like to mention the following two links that try to discuss this issue more.
•
https://www.rd-alliance.org/filedepot_download/694/160
•
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/12/487
Best regards,
T N Bhat
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andrea Westerinen
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 10:09 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2014 discussion
Subject: [ontology-summit] Shareable versus reusable, or shared and reusable
I know that Terry Longstreth raised a question on the conference call today about sharing versus reusing.
I tried poking around the web to see how others used the terms, and here is what I found:
1. Many people talk about sharing and reusing together (but clearly something must first be shared in order to be reused)
2. When there is some distinction, it seems to come from where and how you share (in what repositories or libraries, and with what licensing terms). Then, depending on the where and how of sharing, you might or might not enable reuse.
Terry, Do you define this differently?