At 8:30 AM -0800 2/5/08, Peter Yim wrote:
>We now have two candidate definitions to adopt:
>
>* Candidate-(A): the definition of "ontology
>repository" for the OOR initiative
>
> "An ontology repository is a facility where ontologies and related
>information artifacts can be stored, retrieved and managed."
>
>* Candidate-(B): the definition of "ontology repository" and "ontology
>registry" for the OOR initiative
>
> "An ontology repository is a facility or facilities where ontology
>related artifacts may be persisted and retrieved."
>and,
> "An ontology registry is where metadata can be declared governing
>the storage, semantics, ownership and access policies for artifacts
>persisted in the ontology repository."
>
>ALL: please cast your vote by replying to this thread and indicate
>(A), (B) or "abstain." Voting closes at 8:30am PST / 11:30am EST /
>16:30 UTC on Thu 2008.02.07
> (01)
I vote (A) on the grounds that "persist" is not a
transitive verb in English, so (B) is meaningless. (02)
Pat (03)
>Thanks & regards. =ppy
>
>P.S. Rex and Ken, please cast your vote again, sorry. =ppy
>--
>
>
>On Feb 5, 2008 5:35 AM, <dbedford@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Peter,
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Denise
>
>
>On Feb 5, 2008 4:05 AM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Thank you, Denise. I assume that is for Duane's motion he made in:
>>
>>
>> Duane Nickull wrote Feb 4, 2008 10:32 AM PST,
>> //
>>
>> Motion made to adopt these definitions instead:
>>
>> 1. An Ontology repository is a facility or facilities where ontology related
>> artifacts may be persisted and retrieved.
>>
>> 2. An Ontology Registry is where metadata can be declared governing the
>> storage, semantics, ownership and access policies for artifacts persisted in
>> the ontology repository.
>>
>> //
>>
>> (please let us know otherwise.)
>>
>> Thanks & regards. =ppy
>>
>> P.S. since I have other commitments today, I will not be able to make a
>> post (about the next step in the process) right after the previously
>> discussed cut-off time for submitting new candidate definitions, but will
>> only be able to post about that later in the day. That cut-off time is still
>> in effect, though (since no one objected yesterday.) Please note. Tx. =ppy
>> --
>
>> On Feb 5, 2008 3:41 AM, <dbedford@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > All,
>> >
>> > I second Duane's motion so we can move forward to vote.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > Denise
>
>
>On Feb 4, 2008 2:53 PM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> As mentioned previously, I was hoping we could summarily adopt the
>> motion that has been outstanding so we could move ahead with the
>> initiative and do something concrete.
>>
>> I am equally as happy that there are some last minute input, but hope
>> we can wrap this up soon enough, to be fair to those who had actually
>> spend time at the meeting to discuss the subject matter, and voiced
>> their opinion within the time set aside for discussion.
>>
>> Unless there are objections, let us try to close this (the discussion
>> and possible new motions) and line up all the motion(s) (included
>> seconded ones) for a vote by 8:16am PST / 11:16am EST / 16:16 UTC
>> tomorrow 2008.02.05 (i.e. 1-day after we originally meant to start
>> voting.)
>>
>> Thanks & regards. =ppy
>>
>> P.S. by the way, there is still only one motion out there, stiil. =ppy
>> --
>
>
>
>> On Feb 4, 2008 10:32 AM, Duane Nickull <dnickull@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > Motion made to adopt these definitions instead:
>
>> > 1. An Ontology repository is a facility or
>>facilities where ontology related
>> > artifacts may be persisted and retrieved.
>> >
>> > 2. An Ontology Registry is where metadata can be declared governing the
>> > storage, semantics, ownership and access
>>policies for artifacts persisted in
>> > the ontology repository.
>> >
>> > Any seconders?
> > >
>> > Duane
>
>
>> On Feb 4, 2008 9:06 AM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Denise and Duane,
>> >
>> > I appreciate your new input.
>> >
>> > Since we have moved beyond the debate/discussion window[1], and your
>> > proposals are clear enough to not require much further discourse, may
>> > I suggest you each make a formal motion, and get a second to your
>> > proposed definition, and we move forward from there (and have people
>> > vote on them.)
>> >
>> > [1] ref.
>> > http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/oor-forum/2008-01/msg00018.html#nid05
>> > &
>> > http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/oor-forum/2008-02/msg00000.html#nid02
>> >
>> > Thanks & regards. =ppy
>> > --
>
>
>> > On Feb 4, 2008 8:16 AM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > All,
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Since we have not received alternate candidates, there is only one
>> > > candidate definition put forth, by the attendees of the 23-Jan-2008
>> > > OOR Founding Members meeting, for "Ontology Repository," which reads:
>> > >
>> > > "An ontology repository is a facility where ontologies and related
>> > > information artifacts can be stored, retrieved and managed."
>> > >
>> > > We will open this up for voting (please do so by responding to this
>> > > thread) in the next 48 hours (two working-days.)
>> > >
>> > > Let us try to get general consent and summarily adopt this if we can:
>> > > ... If we do not receive two (2) or more objections to adopting the
>> > > above, we will summarily adopt this definition for the
>> > > OpenOntologyRepository (OOR) initiative. If there are two (2) or more
>> > > people objecting to the adoption, we will put it to a vote, and
>> > > require a two-third majority (given it's importance) to adopt this
>> > > definition.
>> > >
>> > > (While declaring positive support is always welcomed, if you are not
>> > > raising an "objection" you do not necessarily have to cast your vote
>> > > of support at this point.)
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Thanks & regards. =ppy
>> > >
>> > > P.S. since we are doing this for the first time here, any
>> > > comments/suggestions on the process is also welcomed. I am just going
>> > > by what we usually do at ONTOLOG. =ppy
>> > > --
>
>
>> > > On Feb 4, 2008 7:29 AM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > > Thank you, ...[snip]...
>> > > >
>> > > > Focusing on the subject matter (i.e.
>>trying to get a (set of) definition adopted),
>>do we have:
>> > > >
>> > > > (a) alternate candidate definition(s)
>>that anyone else want to put forth for
>>"Ontology Repository" ?
>> > > >
>> > > > (b) any other definitions one may want
>>to propose for adoption together with "Ontology
>>Repository" (maybe "OntologyRegistry" ?) as a
>>set?
>> > > >
>> > > > Please bring it up now (and quickly,
>>along with someone to second the motion). We
>>will be putting the whole subject matter to a
>>vote in 20 minutes.
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks & regards. =ppy
>> > > > --
>
>
>> > > > On Feb 4, 2008 1:43 AM, Dennis Nicholson
>><d.m.nicholson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > ...[snip]...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I'm sending this to you for information ...[snip]...
>> > > > > ---------------------------------------------
>> > > > > Dennis Nicholson
>
>
>> > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > From: oor-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > > > > [mailto:oor-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Yim
>> > > > > Sent: 01 February 2008 15:48
>> > > > > To: OpenOntologyRepository-discussion
>> > > > > Subject: Re: [oor-forum] Defining "Ontology Repository" (maybe
>> > > > > "OntologyRegistry" too) for the OOR Initiative
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Folks,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The seven days we set aside for
>>discussion has come and gone, and 16 or so
>> > > > > exchanges were made on the subject
>>matter. It is about time to bring this to
>> > > > > closure.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > So far we still have only one (well
>>formed) proposed candidate for our
>> > > > > definition of "Ontology Repository," and that is:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Candidate-(A): "An ontology repository is a facility where
>> > > > > ontologies and related information
>>artifacts can be stored, retrieved and
>> > > > > managed."
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I'll wait 3 calendar days for anyone
>>to propose and second other candidates.
> > > > > > Past this time next Monday
>2008.02.04, we will put things to a vote.
> > > > > >
>> > > > > I concur with Lee that:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Lee Feigenbaum wrote an 23, 2008 10:08 PM EST
>> > > > > > [LF] 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
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I think the documented discussion
>>during our Jan-23 meeting on what a
>> > > > > "registry" is (ref.
>> > > > >
>>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR/ConferenceCall_2008_01_23#nid17U
>> > > > > R
>> > > > > ) is enough to allow us to move forward.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Therefore, if you have alternative
>>candidate definitions for "Ontology
>> > > > > Repository", please response to this
>>message and make a motion for its
>> > > > > adoption by this team. Please try to
>>find someone to second your motion too.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks & regards. =ppy
>> > > > >
>> > > > > P.S. Once again, I hope we can just
>>summarily adopt the above definition
>> > > > > (if there are no alternative
>>proposals, and no objections) and go forward.
>> > > > > =ppy
>> > > > > --
>
>
>> > > > > On Jan 23, 2008 12:02 PM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > > > > > 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."
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > 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.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Thanks & regards. =ppy
>> > > > > > --
>
>
>> > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> > > > > > From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
>> > > > > > Date: Jan 23, 2008 11:55 AM
>> > > > > > Subject: Re: [oor-forum] Founding
>>Members Meeting of the Open Ontology
>> > > > > > Repository (OOR) Initiative - Wed 2008.01.23
>> > > > > > To: oor-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > We had a very fruitful meeting
>>today, thanks to all who were able to join
>> > > > > us.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > For those who were able to call in,
>>the proceedings are captured at
>> > > > > > the session page at:
>> > > > > >
>>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR/ConferenceCall_2008_01_23
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > 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. (I'll start a thread on this in
>> > > > > > a moment.)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Very encouraging is the fact that the NIST-Ontology-NCOR-...
>> > > > > > co-organized "OntologySummit2008"
>>has adopted "Toward An Open Ontology
>> > > > > > Repository" as the main theme this year. We are looking forward to
>> > > > > > bootstrap from that initiative.
>>Ideas as to how we could do it would
>> > > > > > be welcome.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Our next call is scheduled for Wed
>>2008.02.13 - 1.5 Hr. starting at:
>> > > > > > 1pm PST / 4pm EST / 21:00 GMT/UTC.
>> > > > > > Please mark your calendars now and refer to details at the wiki
>> > > > > > session page (closer to the time) at:
>> > > > > >
>>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR/ConferenceCall_2008_02_13
> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > Look forward to having you all at the next meeting.
> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > 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 (04)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
http://www.flickr.com/pathayes/collections (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|