Denise, (01)
I don't even think the "inclusiveness" (i.e. a repository would
include a registry) was meant at all. (02)
While I voted for (A) and would still advocate for it, because I feel
it is adequate ... I actually wasn't the person to craft that
definition, nor the person who proposed we just adopt one definition
(i.e. "ontology repsitory"), leave the other ("ontology registry")
alone, and move on. (03)
I would probably have been equally happy and voted to adopt something
that is already documented as an industry standard, if someone had put
a motion to adopt such. (04)
Regards. =ppy
-- (05)
On Feb 6, 2008 10:39 AM, <dbedford@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Peter,
>
> If you adopt definition (A), this inclusiveness will have to be remembered --
>I
> think it is not inherent in the use of the term repository. Some people
>coming
> to this discussion in future from the data management or enterprise
>architecture
> perspective may assume something from the use of the term repository (content
> storage, specifically). The issues will be clarified and designs will evolve
> as the conversation continues.
>
> 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
> (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|