[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: OpenOntologyRepository-discussion <oor-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: John Graybeal <graybeal@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:04:59 -0800
Message-id: <p062408a6c3ccf22956ba@[]>
Several thoughts:    (01)

(a) For me, the former definition (without the 'or') is significantly better.  
The only acceptable repository for me is one which can accomplish all 3 
functions (even if we have yet to set the minimum bar for 'managed').  Just 
being able to do 2 out of 3 makes it useless as a repository for my purposes.  
So it doesn't bother me to exclude those architectures which do not satisfy all 
3.    (02)

(b) [Dennis:] I may not understand the difference between a terminology 
repository and a terminology service registry -- is the latter what you mostly 
called 'registry' or 'terminology/ontology registry' in your (20080204T094339Z) 
email?. If so, I don't _think_ that difference is critical to the vote on the 
definition of Ontology Repository, please provide additional clarification if 
you think it is.    (03)

(c) I would like to see and have more discussion, and someday a definition, 
that addresses the function of finding multiple ontology repositories. I like 
matching common usage wherever possible, so the fact there are 2 common uses 
for the term Ontology Registry (1: place serving metadata about ontologies, 2: 
place serving metadata about ontology repositories) makes me not want that as 
the term of reference. Fortunately, we don't have to have that discussion right 
away IMHO, as it doesn't impact the definition of Ontology Repository. So I 
defer further comments on that topic until the first definition is resolved.    (04)

John    (05)

At 11:34 AM -0500 2/4/08, dbedford@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>I apologize for raising the concern - given what Dennis has described, would it
>be possible to modify the description to read...
>"An ontology repository is a facility where ontologies and related
>information artifacts can be stored, retrieved and/or managed."
>The insertion of the word "or" would make the definition acceptable to me.
>Without it, perhaps it will exclude some legitimate repository architectures.  
>believe that 'retrieved' could be read to mean referenced.
>Best regards,
>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    (06)

John Graybeal   <mailto:graybeal@xxxxxxxxx>  -- 831-775-1956
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
Marine Metadata Initiative: http://marinemetadata.org   ||  Shore Side Data 
System: http://www.mbari.org/ssds    (07)

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     (08)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>