Thank you, John ... a great set of input. I'm responding inline below
... (noting, though, that I have not had a chance to run these answers
by my other co-authors.) =ppy
-- (01)
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:29 PM, John Graybeal <graybeal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Fast comments, since if I wait for well-thought-out comments I may never get
>there. Hope it's useful.
>
> - How much time are slides to fit into again? (02)
[ppy] we asked for a 90 minutes. We intend to finish in one hour
(including opening and the 5 segments), leaving, say, 30 minutes for
open discussion. (03)
> - A little more glue (organization into an architectural/developmental
>sequence) is needed
> - how do the various presented topics relate to each other? some are
>components or contributions to the whole (04)
[ppy] quite possibly so*. There are a few ground rules we were going by: (05)
(a) we need to document/tell "the OOR story." (06)
(b) differentiate this (the OOR effort) from the intellectual
discourse of the Ontology Summit (as they are actually two separate
initiatives working at arms length with one another.) (07)
(c) we (Leo) solicited a 2-slide summary from each of the 22 panelists
from the 4 OOR-Panel sessions (2/28, 3/27, 4/3 & 4/10.) While only a
portion of the summaries came back, we made it a point to include all
of them, verbatim, if the panelists did send them in. (08)
(d) we were governed by an adopted outline (from the 3/14 OOR team
conference call) ... and are delivering that. (09)
[ for those interested, our working notes during the process of
creating this deck can be found at:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR/OOR_Team_20080429_Presentation_Strawman
] (010)
*suggestions welcome. (011)
> - present more sophisticated concepts, like those of M Mehrotra, later,
>after basic requirements (012)
[ppy] good suggestion. Will incorporate into next iteration. (013)
> - Which slides are presented on collective OOR's behalf, and which on an
>individual's or organization's
> behalf, needs to be clear (If we all agree on the roadmap, for example,
>that's good to know) (014)
[ppy] supposedly ALL, especially that "historic" portions of it. The
"roadmap," though, is forward looking, and is only supposed to lay out
some possibilities for going forward (believe it has been mentioned;
if not, Mike could definitely emphasize that in the presentation or
add that into the slides.) (015)
> - Nowhere mentioned: As people keep more of their data in ontologies, will
>this be meant for those too? (016)
[ppy] not sure if I understand your question properly. If we use the
database vs. schema analogy, are you asking whether the OOR is
intended to provide storage for knowledgebases as well, in addition to
ontologies? (017)
I would suggest that, while the answer might invariably be "yes," this
would be a good topic to discuss on the [ontology-summit] list or
during the first day of the workshop, as to whether that yes needs to
be qualified. (018)
> - R&D is often mentioned, but that's implicitly about ontological R&D?
> whereas OOR would also support end user science R&D (019)
[ppy] (I only see two instances of that being used in the slide deck)
Are you referring to the use (of R&D) in slide 23; if so, I think the
answer is yes, but would urge that you consult with Cycorp or their
published information relating to use license. (020)
> - 3, and 7 and onward: existing instances should come later, after goals and
>all that (021)
[ppy] well, " 7 and onward: existing instances" is already after
rationale and motivations. Again, ref the above, we were going by an
adopted agenda (from the 3/14 meeting, which you were actually present
- ref.
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR/ConferenceCall_2008_03_14#nid1BH7
). (022)
> - 16: not clear how CIM3 is meant to fit into this overall presentation
>(ie., is this promotional?) -- address explicitly (023)
[ppy] this is not intended to be promotional (and I don't think it
is, at least not commercially). It ended up that way because those
were the (pertinent) two slide summary from the 2/28 OOR-Panel session
on existing efforts. I'd be happy to modify that if (say 3 or more)
people find it objectionable. (024)
> -19: this is most important slide, IMHO, followed closely by 6 (but 6 should
>come first!) (025)
[ppy] on behalf of the co-atuhors: glad you liked them (026)
> - 25: vision should go toward beginning (027)
[ppy] again, this is one of the "2-slide summaries" that are in there
as a example of the inputs received regarding needs and expectations
(which is stated in slide#22.) Therefore, the vision here is that of
the eOTD effort, and not of the OOR effort. (028)
> - 33: references non-existent "Rationale" on previous slide (029)
[ppy] it actually exists in slide#6. (030)
> - 48: URLs are too long, ooregistry or oorepository or ... better (031)
[ppy] we can talk about it in a later OOR-team meeting. (032)
> - 51: Strawman mentions XMDR -- why not bioportal? ebXML? or others?
>
> John (033)
[ppy] sure ... in fact the panel from the 2/28 session (or any of the
other sessions) form the base where we could take off from. When the
rubber meets the road, though, real constraints will probably surface
to limit our choices. (034)
Thanks & regards. =ppy
-- (035)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (036)
|