Todd and Denise, (01)
That is a serious issue: (02)
DB>> We are using the term 'repository' but we mean essentially
>> a registry not the storage of actual ontologies, correct? (03)
TS> I've heard both notions bandied about. (04)
Ideally, the developers of a resource should be the official
maintainers of the resource. But many issues arise: (05)
1. The developers may disappear, go out of business, die, or
change their web site. (06)
2. Different developers have different policies for retention,
version control, backups, etc. An application that has
critical dependencies on version 2.7 of ontology X should
not be disrupted if the developer suddenly upgrades to
v 2.8, drops support for 2.7, or just makes it unavailable.
(I'm sure that we have all seen things like that happen
with software from major vendors.) (07)
3. The OOR should maintain all comments, reviews, validations,
etc., both positive and negative. The developers of a
resource might be tempted to "accentuate the positive
and eliminate the negative." Therefore, they should not
have the right to delete or modify any reviews. On the
other hand, some reviewers might be uninformed or hostile.
So some responsible party should have the right to review
the reviewers and adjudicate any disputes. (08)
John Sowa (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|