sio-dev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [sio-dev] Fwd: [ontolog-forum] Sharing and Integrating Ontologies

To: "[sio-dev] discussion" <sio-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: kenb <kenb@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 16:33:37 -0400 (EDT)
Message-id: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1004101627260.4500@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010, Cameron Ross wrote:    (01)

> There are clearly pros and cons to having a rigorous administrative 
> processes wrapped around an OOR.  However, it would be a 
> daunting task to establish some kind of an "OOR of record" using
> a strict admin regime.  Why not create a reusable OOR infrastructure 
> and let groups implement an OOR using whatever admin
> regime they choose?  Then let "creative destruction" go to work?    (02)

The OOR use cases are intended to support exactly this. The idea is that 
the OOR will be a federated collection of instances, each for its own 
community. Each community/group has the freedom to choose their own 
workflows and policies.    (03)

-- Ken    (04)

> 
> 
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>       > [RonW]  The free market of ideas will sort out the great ones
>       and poor ones.
>
>       [ppy]  I don't think there is a disagreement here. I trust the
>       choice
>       to include some quality assurance process into the requirements,
>        made
>       by those who were involved in the earlier discussion, is exactly
>       for
>       that reason too, to give the OOR a better chance of survival when
>       pitched against the other ontology repositories that are (or will
>       be)
>       "out there."
>
>       Regards.  =ppy
>       --
> 
> 
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Ron Wheeler
> <rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >>> '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.
> >
> >>> '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.
> >
> >> Todd
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Kojeware Corporation
> 
>    (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     (01)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>