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)
|