Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote: (01)
>Good questions, Cameron ...
>
>> [CR] 1) Is reasoning in scope for the OOR?
>
>[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.
>
>
>> [CR] 2) Is the OOR intended to be an "open system"? [and] "open source"?
>
>[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.
>
>
>> [CR] 3) Is the OOR initiative bound to architectural constraints imposed by
>the
>> BioPortal code base?
>
>[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.
>
>
>Regards. =ppy
>--
>
>
>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
>
>
>> 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
>> --
>
>
>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
>> --
>
>
>> 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
>>>> --
>
>
>> 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
>>> --
>
>
>>>> 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
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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 (02)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (03)
|