> [JG] The bar is *so* low if the only functions are storing ontologies and
> them available (any appropriate file store can do that, no?), that adding
> is what makes the project compelling from my point of view. Otherwise why
[ppy] I think people should refer to the OOR initiative's "Charter"
) rather than the "Definition of Ontology Repository" to find their
own answer to the the "why bother?" question. (02)
Just one thought! =ppy
On Feb 4, 2008 9:34 AM, John Graybeal <graybeal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> At 5:20 PM +0000 2/4/08, Dennis Nicholson wrote:
> >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
> Yes. The bar is *so* low if the only functions are storing ontologies and
>making them available (any appropriate file store can do that, no?), that
>adding 'manage' is what makes the project compelling from my point of view.
>Otherwise why bother?
> That said, if I'm the only one who sees it this way, I'll definitely let it
> >...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.
> I agree, someone might add that capability to a repository but it is
>additional, not required, and not what I'd call 'contained within'.
> And no, I don't think additional definitions will help. :-> (Said
> John Graybeal <mailto:graybeal@xxxxxxxxx> -- 831-775-1956
> Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
> Marine Metadata Initiative: http://marinemetadata.org || Shore Side Data
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/oor-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OOR/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository (05)