oor-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [oor-forum] Defining "Ontology Repository" (maybe "Ontology Registry

To: OpenOntologyRepository-discussion <oor-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Peter Yim" <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
From: Luis Bermudez <bermudez@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:14:12 -0500
Message-id: <253CDC38-A6E4-4D44-A56A-E6EFB7A42ADE@xxxxxxxx>
Hi Peter, et. al.    (01)

sorry I missed the call..    (02)

To complement.. ISO 19135:2005 defines "specifies procedures to be  
followed in establishing, maintaining and publishing registers of  
unique, unambiguous and permanent identifier" It contains definitions,  
such as:    (03)

registration:
assignment of a permanent, unique, and unambiguous identifier to an item    (04)

register:
set of files containing identifiers assigned to items with  
descriptions of the associated items    (05)

registry:
information system on which a register is maintained    (06)

register owner:
organization that establishes a register    (07)

register manager:
organization to which management of a register has been delegated by  
the register owner
..    (08)


One of the issues is identifying the item being register:
1) A resource
2) A triple
3) A graph
4) An ontology
5) ???    (09)

So, "An ontology repository is a facility where ontologies and relate  
information artifacts can be stored, retrieved and managed.", in ISO  
words will be:    (010)

An ontology repository is an ontology registry or information system  
on which a register of ontologies is maintained.    (011)

- Luis    (012)


___
Luis Bermudez Ph.D.
Coastal Research Technical Manager
Southeastern Universities Research Association (SURA)
bermudez@xxxxxxxx - Office: (202) 408-8211  Mobile: (267) 481-4939
1201 New York Ave. NW Suite 430, Washington DC 20005    (013)

On Jan 23, 2008, at 11:13 PM, Peter Yim wrote:    (014)

> 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.)
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks & regards.  =ppy
> --
>
>
> 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."
>
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> I find this definition perfectly acceptable.
>
>>> 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.
>
>> 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
>
> [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.)
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks & regards.  =ppy
> --
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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    (015)


_________________________________________________________________
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     (016)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>