Good questions, Cameron ... (01)
> [CR] 1) Is reasoning in scope for the OOR? (02)
[ppy] I would think so, at least on two levels ... (a) possibly as an
enabler to ensure quality of the OOR content, and (b) it was
recognized by the community (flashback to OntologySummit2008) that,
while the scope of the "Repository" being only that of the
"container," it is the "services" that one can build to operate on the
content of the container that is going to make the OOR initiative
interesting and worth doing. (03)
> [CR] 2) Is the OOR intended to be an "open system"? [and] "open source"? (04)
[ppy] Leo answered that already - we want to be *both* and also be
able to interoperate with non-open technology and content. Mike Dean
specifically used the Apache Foundation as a a role model ... the OOR
team would work to enable interoperability with proprietary folks, but
should *only* be developing opensourced technology within the team. (05)
> [CR] 3) Is the OOR initiative bound to architectural constraints imposed by
>the
> BioPortal code base? (06)
[ppy] theoretically NO ... however, since we are actually
bootstrapping off that code base, I'm sure inheriting some of their
architectural decisions may be prudent. (07)
Regards. =ppy
-- (08)
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Obrst, Leo J. <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Cameron,
>
> I think our general idea was yes, OOR would be both ‘open source’ and ‘open
> system’, based on this definition. Modularity is a key requirement, and I
> think Mike Dean had made that clear from OOR’s inception.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Leo
> _____________________________________________
>
> Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation, Information Semantics
>
> lobrst@xxxxxxxxx Information Discovery & Understanding, Command &
> Control Center
> Voice: 703-983-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S H305
> Fax: 703-983-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA (09)
> From: Cameron Ross [mailto:cross@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 3:40 PM
> To: Peter Yim
> Cc: Adam Pease; Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6; John Bateman; Michael
> Gruninger; John F. Sowa; Patrick Cassidy; Todd J Schneider; Natasha Noy;
> Mark Musen; Obrst, Leo J.; Mike Dean
> Subject: Re: CLIF translation of SUMO
>
>
>
> Some questions inline...
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Thank you for the responses, Cameron. Duly noted, and I do wish you
> get funded so your good work can be open-sourced.
>
>>> [ppy] we were
>
>>> actually discussing that at the OOR meeting today (missed you there).
>>> Ref.
>>>
>>>
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR/ConferenceCall_2010_07_23#nid2FTP
>>
>
>> [CR] I think that focusing a discussion on the requirements for
>> supporting
>
>> CL within the OOR is a really good idea. I'll certainly plan to attend...
>> to
>> clarify, is this tentatively scheduled for August 19th? Not sure if its in
>> scope, but a discussion on reasoner support for CL would be really useful
>> as
>> well.
>
> [ppy] I agree "a discussion on reasoner support for CL would be
> really useful" although (especially in the OOR context) we will have
> to restrict this discussion an open source tool, as the purpose is to
> get the community to develop the *Open* Ontology Repository technology
> ... and unlike what we do at the Ontolog forum, where we can
> *occasionally* waive this IPR restriction so that we can provide
> exposure to the community as to what is the state-of-the-art ... as in
> the case of
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2010_08_05#nid2FB2
>
>
>
> I think two points are confounded here. To clarify...
>
>
>
> 1) Is reasoning in scope for the OOR?
>
>
>
> 2) Is the OOR intended to be an "open system"? By "open system" I'm
> referring to this definition: http://www.acq.osd.mil/osjtf/whatisos.html.
> By this definition, "open source" and "open system" are distinctly
> different. The former relates to how software is licensed, the later
> relates to how software is designed and built. The source code of an "open
> system" may be open sourced, but it doesn't have to be. Likewise, lots of
> open source software is not designed and built according to this definition
> of an "open system". Open systems promote the best practice of software
> modularity (an entirely different thing from ontology modularity).
>
>
>
> Is there a consensus to design and build the OOR as an "open system"? That
> is, as a system that employs modular design, uses widely supported and
> consensus based standards for its key interfaces, and has been subjected to
> successful validation and verification tests to ensure the openness of its
> key interfaces. If so, then I believe that one of the early deliverables
> from the project would be a software architecture to support modularity
> which includes the specification of interfaces to support communication
> between modules.
>
>
> I believe that this is the way to go as it promotes a decentralized
> authority for implementing and evolving the system components etc.
>
>
> 3) Is the OOR initiative bound to architectural constraints imposed by the
> BioPortal code base?
>
>
>
> Regards. =ppy
>
> p.s. if you don't mind, we should put this out onto the [oor-forum] list.
> =ppy
> -- (010)
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thank you for the responses, Cameron. Duly noted, and I do wish you
> get funded so your good work can be open-sourced.
>
>>> [ppy] we were
>>> actually discussing that at the OOR meeting today (missed you there).
>>> Ref.
>>>
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR/ConferenceCall_2010_07_23#nid2FTP
>>
>> [CR] I think that focusing a discussion on the requirements for supporting
>> CL within the OOR is a really good idea. I'll certainly plan to attend... to
>> clarify, is this tentatively scheduled for August 19th? Not sure if its in
>> scope, but a discussion on reasoner support for CL would be really useful as
>> well.
>
> [ppy] I agree "a discussion on reasoner support for CL would be
> really useful" although (especially in the OOR context) we will have
> to restrict this discussion an open source tool, as the purpose is to
> get the community to develop the *Open* Ontology Repository technology
> ... and unlike what we do at the Ontolog forum, where we can
> *occasionally* waive this IPR restriction so that we can provide
> exposure to the community as to what is the state-of-the-art ... as in
> the case of
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2010_08_05#nid2FB2
>
> Regards. =ppy
>
> p.s. if you don't mind, we should put this out onto the [oor-forum] list.
>=ppy
> -- (011)
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Cameron Ross <cross@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>
>> Comments inline...
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Cameron,
>>>
>>> Great! ... [ontolog-forum] (mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
>>> would probably be the most appropriate list to make the announcement
>>> on.
>>
>> OK. Just a few technical details I'd like to work out with Adam before I
>> send out the announcement. Thanks.
>
>>> Ref. your suite of tools (if you decide to open source them)
>>
>> My current plan is to market this suite of tools as a commercial
>> product(s).
>> An adequately funded SIO/OOR/CL/... project could allow me to change this
>> plan however. I do plan to release content such as ontology translations
>> etc. under an open source license.
>
>>> and your
>>> suggestion that you might be willing to contribute to developing a
>>> CL-backend for the OOR (given the BioPortal codebase),
>>
>> Again, if I have to fund the development myself I'll have to market the
>> CL-backend as a commercial product. Regardless, I would base the
>> CL-backend
>> on an open interface specification that we would (hopefully) define as
>> part
>> of the SIO/OOR initiative(s).
>
>>> we were
>>> actually discussing that at the OOR meeting today (missed you there).
>>> Ref.
>>>
>>>
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR/ConferenceCall_2010_07_23#nid2FTP
>>
>> I think that focusing a discussion on the requirements for supporting CL
>> within the OOR is a really good idea. I'll certainly plan to attend... to
>> clarify, is this tentatively scheduled for August 19th? Not sure if its in
>> scope, but a discussion on reasoner support for CL would be really useful
>> as
>> well.
>
>>> and
>>>
>>>
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR/ConferenceCall_2010_07_23#nid2FTV
>>
>> I've noted the schedule change.
>
>>> In addition to announcing your "CLIF translation of SUMO" at the
>>> [ontolog-forum], maybe you and Adam (would you do that, Adam?) can
>>> join us at this upcoming Joint SIO-OOR-Ontolog "OOR and CL" (need a
>>> proper label yet) session to talk about that and other thought that
>>> are of relevance (in anticipation of the "Getting OOR Development
>>> Going - Take-III" workshop.)
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Thanks & regards. =ppy
>>> -- (012)
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi Cameron,
>>
>> Great! ... [ontolog-forum] (mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
>> would probably be the most appropriate list to make the announcement
>> on.
>>
>
>> Ref. your suite of tools (if you decide to open source them) and your
>
>> suggestion that you might be willing to contribute to developing a
>
>> CL-backend for the OOR (given the BioPortal codebase), we were
>
>> actually discussing that at the OOR meeting today (missed you there).
>> Ref.
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR/ConferenceCall_2010_07_23#nid2FTP
>
>> and
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR/ConferenceCall_2010_07_23#nid2FTV
>>
>
>> In addition to announcing your "CLIF translation of SUMO" at the
>> [ontolog-forum], maybe you and Adam (would you do that, Adam?) can
>> join us at this upcoming Joint SIO-OOR-Ontolog "OOR and CL" (need a
>> proper label yet) session to talk about that and other thought that
>> are of relevance (in anticipation of the "Getting OOR Development
>> Going - Take-III" workshop.)
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Thanks & regards. =ppy
>> -- (013)
>>> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Cameron Ross <cross@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > Hi Peter,
>>> > As I mentioned last week, I have completed my first pass at a CLIF
>>> > translation of SUMO. I call this translation SUMO-CL and it is now
>>> > available for download here: http://www.kojeware.com/downloads.jsp. I
>>> > would
>>> > like to announce this on one of the ONTOLOG forums. Which one do you
>>> > think
>>> > would be most appropriate?
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Cameron.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Kojeware Corporation (014)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (015)
|