|
At 8:14 AM -0500 1/24/08, Luis Bermudez wrote:
Hi Peter, et. al.
sorry I missed the call..
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:
OK, interpreting this in Web terms:
registration:
assignment of a permanent, unique, and unambiguous identifier to an
item
A URI unambiguously identifies a SWeb ontology and provides a way
to access it
register:
set of files containing identifiers assigned to items with
descriptions of the associated items
The use of "files" is archaic now. Ignoring that, a
list of URIs as hyperlinks in an HTML document would seem to satisfy
this.
registry:
information system on which a register is maintained
That is the Web itself; or if you prefer, a particular
website such as
http://www.daml.org/ontologies/
register owner:
organization that establishes a register
The owner of the website.
register manager:
organization to which management of a register has been delegated
by
the register owner
yadda yadda.
..
One of the issues is identifying the item being register:
1) A resource
2) A triple
3) A graph
4) An ontology
5) ???
So, "An ontology repository is a facility where ontologies and
relate
information artifacts can be stored, retrieved and managed.", in
ISO
words will be:
An ontology repository is an ontology registry or information
system
on which a register of ontologies is maintained.
Like many ISO definitions, this seems to be completely vacuous,
or possibly wrong. (A repository is a registry?? Surely not.)
Pat
- Luis
___
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
On Jan 23, 2008, at 11:13 PM, Peter Yim wrote:
> 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
_________________________________________________________________
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
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC
(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
40 South Alcaniz St.
(850)202 4416 office
Pensacola
(850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502
(850)291 0667 cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
_________________________________________________________________
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 (01)
|