[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [oor-forum] [Summit-Focus] The 'Open' in 'Open Ontology Repository'

To: OpenOntologyRepository-discussion <oor-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Peter Yim" <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:23:10 -0800
Message-id: <af8f58ac0802132023o7702af9cr6511fd47b005951a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
(This is a copy for the [oor-forum] archives ... please continue the
discussion by continuing the thread at [ontology-summit] unless you
want to specifically address your remarks to OOR work.  =ppy)    (01)

Although not 'officially' a part of the Ontology Summit 2008
discussion, those of us who straddle both the OntologySummit2008 and
the OpenOntologyRepository (OOR) initiatives would have recognized
that we have just (in the last 2~3 weeks) spent quite a bit of time
defining (for the OOR effort) what an "Ontology Repository" is.
[See thread at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/oor-forum/2008-02/msg00071.html
]    (02)

Ken Baclawski pointed out, correctly, during the Feb-7 Launch Event,
that while we had taken so much time to mull over what is an "ontology
repository" and what is an "ontology registry", we hadn't quite put in
any time to delineate what is (or isn't) "open" (... and this is the
response: let's discuss it here, online.)    (03)

In Ravi Sharma's earlier post (I'm chaneling that part of the
discussion over here, Ravi!),
(ref. http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/2008-02/msg00011.html#nid06
) he wrote:    (04)

[RaviSharma]  What I understand from Word OPEN is that it is to be
decided by this Community that:    (05)

 OPEN implies:    (06)

  Open standards based    (07)

  Open access to all who can be identified or authenticated    (08)

  Open access to all members of community who want to post comments
suggestions and opinions    (09)

  Open access to all trusted and authenticable communities (at least Read only)
//    (010)

I also remarked, during the Feb-7 launch, that, (consistent with
Ontolog's IPR Policy [0])  would want OPEN to mean:    (011)

   Open standard & open access (which I concur)    (012)

  Open technology - which includes licensing like those in open
source software [1],    (013)

  Open knowledge - which includes open content licensing [2]    (014)

  Open collaboration - which includes open and transparent process [3], and    (015)

  an Open mind from everyone invloved [4].    (016)

My favorite references would come from:    (017)

 [0] The Ontolog IPR Policy -
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid32    (018)

 [1]  The Open Source definition -
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php    (019)

 [2]  Creative Commons - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/    (020)

 [3]  The OASIS process - http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php    (021)

 [4]  this will have to come from each one of us.    (022)

... and, rather than reinventing the wheel, I propose we default to
some version of the above, well documented references.    (023)

Thoughts, comments, ...    (024)

Thanks & regards.  =ppy    (025)

P.S. I believe this conversation is useful to both OntologySummit2008
and the OpenOntologyRepository (OOR) efforts (and probably more so to
the latter.)  =ppy
--    (026)

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     (027)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [oor-forum] [Summit-Focus] The 'Open' in 'Open Ontology Repository' - what is within scope, and what is out?, Peter Yim <=