On 10/04/2010 2:47 PM, Todd J Schneider wrote:
> Ron,
>
>
>> Horribly bureaucratic process.
>>
> Possibly, but given what passes for an 'ontology' today suggests
> that some processes are needed. One goal of the OOR is to promote
> best practices. We expect some of these best practices to be
> represented/implemented in the OOR 'Horribly bureaucratic processes'.
>
> For example, provenance. Many (perhaps most) ontologies fail to
> provide the provenance for the development of the terms and
> relations that occur in the ontology. So that if someone is
> looking for a 'good' ontology, what evidence will there be
> to justify a decision to use one ontology over another.
>
>
The same process that is used to select software tools.
1) The reputation of the organization producing the ontology
2) Peer reviews
3) Successful applications built using the ontologies
4) Organizations that have adopted the ontology as a standard (01)
If you are in charge of a multimillion dollar software project that will
rely on ontology, you will be very careful which ones you select.
If you are supplying the DoD with goods or services and need to
interface to their purchasing system you will use the ontology that they
pick for their system. (02)
>> 'The only criteria for submitting an ontology to a central repository
>> should be some claim on the namespace'
>>
> Well, I do think the OOR is not attempting to provide ego support.
> The value of ontologies is, and will be, the ability to use them
> independent of their originating source/sponsor/creator.
>
>
Nothing to do with ego. I am only concerned about namespace collisions
and the ability to support as many ontology sources as possible with the
least confusion. (03)
>> 'I should be able to submit any ontology that I want as long as I
>> supply the minimal metadata to permit the OOR to index it.'
>>
> Such minimal criteria will prolong the creation/propagation
> of poor quality ontologies and reinforce the fragmentation
> and duplication of efforts that currently takes place in
> this area.
>
>
Exactly. A monopoly on ideas is never a good way to support innovation.
The free market of ideas will sort out the great ones and poor ones. (04)
> Todd
>
>
>
>
> (05)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/sio-dev/
Join Community: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/sio-dev/
Unsubscribe: mailto:sio-dev-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/SIO/
Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SharingIntegratingOntologies (06)
|