[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "'OpenOntologyRepository-discussion'" <oor-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Dennis Nicholson" <d.m.nicholson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:20:13 -0000
Message-id: <00e201c86752$339a2b60$0dbb9f82@LAPDENNIS>
Hi John    (01)

Re:    (02)

>(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.    (03)

The HILT pilot service stores and makes accessible around 10 KOS but doesn't
currently manage any of them in the sense of ongoing maintenance of the
scheme. I think the definition should be inclusive. Even if we think it is
to be preferred that a repository should also manage, is it sensible to have
a definition that excludes facilities that store ontologies and make them
accessible?    (04)

>(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?.    (05)

Very roughly, a repository stores ontologies and makes them accessible (and
maybe manages them), a terminology service registry is a separate facility
that provides metadata about lots of such repositories and allows them to be
discovered and accessed by services or people who originally don't know
about them    (06)

> 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.    (07)

It isn't relevant as long as we can agree that a terminology service
registry isn't a sub-section of a repository as someone has suggested on the
wiki. The current definition doesn't seem to imply this, so I have no
problem with the definition on that point at least (but see above on 'or')    (08)

>(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.    (09)

Yes, but I don't think adding a third definition will help, will it?    (010)

Dennis    (011)

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     (012)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>