[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Summit 2014 Hackathon - Optimized SPARQL

To: Ontology Summit 2014 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:52:09 -0700
Message-id: <CAGdcwD0D3ZX-6bsSG9kNLT7gAStndvS_wWaQGnQOiD_-X27iyQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thank you very much for highlighting this potential issue, Mike.    (01)

Yes, our prevailing Open IPR Policy and practice do apply to
contributions during the Ontology Summit process - see:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid32    (02)

We do, on occasions and prior to the event, grant waivers, in the
interest of providing a broad exposure of the state-of-the-art to the
community by inviting the participation and presentation of
proprietary material.    (03)

To help clarify whether we are still in conformance to this Open IPR
practice, maybe VictorChernov can help us by listing the IPR owners
and Applicable Use License of the various products involved in your
hackathon project.  (In case some of them turn out to be proprietary,
at least we should retroactively apply and clearly indicate the
appropriate "waiver.")    (04)

Thanks & regards. =ppy
--     (05)

On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Mike Bergman <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Since my first exposure to the Ontolog Forum, Peter in particular has
> been an active steward to keep discussions clear of any proprietary or
> product-oriented discussions.
> The "hackathons" appear to me to be an backdoor way to promote and
> discuss certain tools and products in a less than transparent way, and
> in violation (as I understand it) of the forum's neutrality on such
> matters. One could say anyone could participate in these hackathons, but
> the choice of timing, topic, lead and so forth also can effectively
> penalize any vendor that has not the time, direct interest or window to
> participate.
> I really have no idea what is exactly going on with this specific
> activity, but I am really quite bothered by what I perceive to be a
> biased and parochial tone. To my mind, there is clearly a conflict of
> interest in a specific vendor writing reports under the guise and
> implied endorsement of the forum.
> I encourage the forum to re-think how it is handling these matters.
>    (06)

> On 4/25/2014 10:10 AM, Victor Chernov wrote:
>> We modified the report. The following important notes added:
>> /Virtuoso and Stardog representatives expressed their disagreement with
>> our results.
>> According to Virtuoso opinion it was necessary to configure their
>> triplestore before the experiments. Unfortunately there were no
>> participants from Virtuoso. Configuring Virtuoso without them would be
>> time consuming, we have experimented with the default settings.
>> For Stardog we could not adjust the Native API without presence of
>> Stardog developers, and had to use dotNetRDF that works through HTTP.
>> Strictly speaking that does not meet the announced topic of the research.
>> In view of the above, we present only the results NitrosBase.
>> Nevertheless, the results of Virtuoso and Stardog were used by
>> participants in the discussion as an additional confirmation of
>> ontological database performance problems.
>> /The report can be downloaded from
>> http://nitrosbase.com/wp-content/uploads/OptimizedSPARQLreportV12.zip
>> Regards,
>> Victor
>> mailto:vchernov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (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/OntologySummit2014/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014  
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/     (08)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>