oor-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "John Graybeal" <graybeal@xxxxxxxxx>, OpenOntologyRepository-discussion <oor-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Peter Yim" <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:52:16 -0800
Message-id: <af8f58ac0802040952wde248d0rbaf4f634ea75100f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
During the discussion, the inclination (I thought) was to consign
"metadata" to the "registry" (rather than the "repository".) But it
was also brought up, and rightfully so, that a "repository", if it is
any good, would also include a "registry" or have one  associated with
it.    (01)

Regards.  =ppy
--    (02)


On Feb 4, 2008 9:44 AM, John Graybeal <graybeal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I thought I also heard on a telecon that artifacts could include the metadata 
>that goes along with managing the ontology, e.g., who made what changes, or 
>comments that are 'externally attached' to a particular term or version.  Yes? 
>No? Maybe?
>
> john    (03)


> At 9:33 AM -0800 2/4/08, Peter Yim wrote:
> > > [DN]  can someone clarify what is meant by 'related
> >> information artefacts'? Do you mean artefacts related to particular
> >> ontologies, or do you mean ontologies 'and similar' (i.e., do you mean to
> >> include other kinds of knowledge organisation systems (KOS) like
> >> classification schemes and taxonomies?)
> >
> >[ppy]  what I (and probably a few others in the Jan-23 discussion) had
> >in mind when discussing the original proposals,) "artefacts related to
> >particular ontologies" are those that were addressed during Ontology
> >Summit 2007 [1] - which revolved around the theme of: "Ontology,
> >Taxonomy, Folksonomy: Understanding the Distinctions."  This would
> >include "artifacts" that various communities may "call an ontology"
> >and those they are spread out  over the "ontology spectrum" (which
> >includes data models, database and XML schemas, taxonomies, thesaurus,
> >conceptual models, logical theories, etc.)
> >
> >[1] Please refer to the documented input and proceedings from and the
> >Ontology Summit 2007 (2007.01.18~2007.04.24 plus some follow-up
> >activities) at:
> >http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007
> >
> >[2]  a quick overview of what had transpired can be gleaned from:
> >
> >(2.1) The OntologySummit2007 Communique -
> >http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007_Communique
> >and
> >(2.2) A subsequent presentation entitled: "Lessons Learned from
> >Virtual Organizing for the Ontology Summit 2007" -
> 
>>http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/Expedition_Workshop/2007-07-17_TowardsStableMeaningAndRecordsPreservation/Ontolog-Panel--OntologySummit2007-lessons-learned_20070717.ppt
> >
> >Thanks & regards.  =ppy
> >--
> >
> >
> >On Feb 4, 2008 9:08 AM, Dennis Nicholson <d.m.nicholson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> I'm inclined to agree with the addition of 'or'. It is entirely possible
> >> that a repository will not manage an ontology but only store it and allow 
>it
> >> to be retrieved. Also, can someone clarify what is meant by 'related
> >> information artefacts'? Do you mean artefacts related to particular
> >> ontologies, or do you mean ontologies 'and similar' (i.e., do you mean to
> >> include other kinds of knowledge organisation systems (KOS) like
> >> classification schemes and taxonomies?)
> >>
> >> Dennis
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: oor-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> [mailto:oor-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> >> dbedford@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Sent: 04 February 2008 16:34
> >> To: OpenOntologyRepository-discussion
> >> Subject: Re: [oor-forum] Defining "Ontology Repository" (maybe
> >> "OntologyRegistry" too) for the OOR Initiative
> >>
> >>
> >> All,
> >>
> >> 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.  I believe that 'retrieved' could be read to mean 
>referenced.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Denise
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >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
>
>
>
> --
> ----------
> 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
>    (04)

_________________________________________________________________
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     (05)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>