I concur, Lee. In fact, I was hoping we would have come to closure on
this at the call today (but unfortunately, we did not.) (01)
Since we only had 12 people on the call (out of the 38 that are
subscribed to the list), it does help to get buyin from the entire
team. If we don't have further objections (which I hope we don't) we
could just summarily adopt the definition that the meeting
participants came up with today. (02)
Thanks & regards. =ppy
-- (03)
On Jan 23, 2008 10:08 PM EST, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Peter Yim wrote Jan 23, 2008 12:02 PM PST:
> >> In particular, were made an attempt (and came close) to adopting
> >> a definition for "ontology repository" (possibly even "ontology
> >> registry"), but decided to put this up for asynchronous discussion
> >> deliberation due to time constraints.
> >
> > Ref.
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR/ConferenceCall_2008_01_23#nid17US
> >
> > We were close ... (and have got to):
> >
> > "An ontology repository is a facility where ontologies and related
> > information artifacts can be stored, retrieved and managed." (04)
> Hi Peter,
>
> I find this definition perfectly acceptable. (05)
> > Let's open this up for discussion and then put it to a vote after 7
> > calendar days (from the time-stamp of this message).
> >
> > Feel free to attempt defining "ontology registry" or "registry" too.
> > If we are getting close, we'll adopt that as well. (06)
> While I found the discussion today quite interesting, I'm not sure how
> important it is to our going forward to define registry or ontology
> registry itself. I think there was a consensus understanding in general
> of the distinction between a repository and a registry -- if we agree on
> a definition for a repository (which is our end goal, if I understand
> the project correctly :-), then perhaps we do not need to belabor a
> definition of ontology registry as well?
>
> Lee (07)
[ppy] I concur, Lee. In fact, I was hoping we would have come to
closure on this at the call today (but unfortunately, we did not.) (08)
Since we only had 12 people on the call (out of the 38 that are
subscribed to the list), it does help to get buyin from the entire
team. If we don't have further objections (which I hope we don't) we
could just summarily adopt the definition that the meeting
participants came up with today. (09)
Thanks & regards. =ppy
-- (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/oor-forum/
Subscribe: mailto:oor-forum-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/oor-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OOR/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository (011)
|