Open Ontology Repository initiative - Planning Meeting - Thu 2008-01-03    (162I)

We are using this conference call to explore and possibly plan on kicking-off an Open Ontology Repository initiative, which a few of the folks in the community feels that a collaborative effort on such would be a meaningful thing to move forward with --Conveners: PeterYim, LeoObrst & MikeDean    (16O9)

Conference Call Details    (16OA)

Attendees    (16OW)

Agenda Ideas    (16PA)

(please insert your ideas below)    (16PB)

Agenda & Proceedings    (16PD)

1) Welcome & calling the meeting to order    (16PE)

2) Participants' self-introduction (affiliation, pertinent work, etc.) and expectations from this call or the initiative (2 minute each)    (16PJ)

3) Key Issue(s) discussion - "Open Ontology Repository initiative - Planning":    (16PK)

Discussion:    (16SM)

//    (16XG)

 DuaneNickull: Registry-Repository facitilies should generally not contain any reasoning components. 
   R&R is simply a storage facility.  Reasoning engines use R&R API's as a source of knowledge.    (16XW)
 DuaneNickull: IN ISO/IEC 11179 2004 part 3, the purpose of the registry is to be loaded with the
   first order logic that constraints further binary or n-ary relationships to a set number of types 
   (Symmetrical, Assymetrical etc).  These can be inherited and labelled to build custom representations 
   of taxonomy concept maps.    (16XX)
 DuaneNickull: Also - mapping does not work unless one considers the some context aspects.  One gotcha 
   is the heirarchy in XML.  A data element "FirstNameOfPerson" is not the same if it occurs in a path 
   of //PurchaseORder/BuyerParty/ vs. PurchaseOrder/SellerParty/    (16XY)
 MarkFeblowitz: I've had to ring off for another call. I'm quite interested in this topic. I'll be 
   listening to the recording later, and will be interested in any follow-on.    (16XZ)
 anonymous2: Looking at the R&R as analogous to an archive, I'm in agreement with Duane that the 
   registry should contain just first order logic.    (16Y0)
 Lee Feigenbaum: Open Anzo semantic middleware platform:    (16Y1)
 JohnGraybeal: Speed of initial roll-out will be important for some participants -- having a few 
   capabilities early will be extremely valuable.    (16Y2)
 JohnGraybeal: So I love the use cases/requirements -- thanks very much for providing those!
   (Prioritization of them will be key.)  And am eager to participate in a collaboration.    (16Y3)
 JohnGraybeal: Must sign off for now.  Looking forward to the results.    (16Y4)
 FarrukhNajmi: Starting point for reading on ebXML RegRep and 
   freebXML registry: <>    (16Y5)
 Lee Feigenbaum: I got disconnected. WIll try to rejoin.    (16Y6)
 LiDing: centralized semantic web ontology search engine - 
   It offers submit, index, search, version-tracking and REST web service.    (16Y7)
 DuaneNickull: Here is a registry&ontology project I did for the Canadian Government:    (16Y8)
 DuaneNickull:    (16Y9)
 AndersTell: Ref to: Architectural principles and point of views, IEEE1471, ISO 42010:2007    (16YA)
 MikeDean: To promote the global use of ontologies by developing and maintaining an open, 
   collaborative ontology repository.    (16YB)
 anonymous2 morphed into Gerry Creager    (16YC)
 Gerry Creager: I'm inclined to agree that the following are good points:
   1.  Federated repository structure although a distributed system should be employed.  
        Thus, we need to work toward interoperable and scalable repositories as individual ones evolve.
   2.  Individual software elements should be purpose-driven rather than large code-sets 
        (unix model of services).
   3.  Services will be what draws in users.  Therefore, apps will need to evolve that are 
        user-requirement driven rather than simply providing a sterile API.    (16YD)
 anonymous1 morphed into LeoObrst    (16YE)
 RexBrooks: I got disconnected, but I will also make sure that the group I work with is informed about this. 
   It is the Integrated Response Services Consortium, focused on Emergency Management and Health Informatics, 
   putting together a very domain-specific Service-Oriented Architecture. I hesitated to muddy the waters by 
   suggesting that this effort, by its very nature, will tend toward developing a de facto SOA.    (16YF)
 DuaneNickull: Think mission should be to establish a hosted registry-repository    (16YG)
 RexBrooks: However, I think Leo's point about the need for developing services to make use of the 
   registry-repository--provide benefits--is important.    (16YH)
 LiDing: a question, how the statement will be evaluated?    (16YI)
 FarrukhNajmi: How about:
   To promote the global use of ontologies by enabling and facilitating open, federated collaborative 
   ontology repositories.    (16YJ)
 MikeDean: i like farrukh's proposal    (16YK)
 Gerry Creager: That'd work for me.    (16YL)
 AndersTell: Farrukh new statements is a step forward.    (16YM)
 LiDing: The goal is to promote usage of ontology, but the approach is not limited to ontology repository 
   because there are many other factors, such as tools supporting ontology, mapping and integration services, 
   visualization services.    (16YN)
 FarrukhNajmi: ebXML RegRep Profile for Web Ontology <>    (16YO)
 RexBrooks: I agree with Farrukh's suggestion.    (16YP)
 DuaneNickull: + 1 to Farrukh's statement.    (16YQ)
 DuaneNickull: mission should be to: 
   1. establish a hosted registry-repository; 
   2. promote the global use of ontologies by enabling and facilitating open, federated collaborative 
       ontology repositories,; 
   3. establish best practices for expressing ontology and taxonomy work in registry-repoositories    (16YR)
 JohnGraybeal: Farrukh's candidate does not say we will develop anything, only that we will 
   facilitate development of things. Don't know if thats an issue or not.    (16YS)
 DuaneNickull: yes - that is why I added the other parts    (16YT)
 FarrukhNajmi: +1 on Duanes 3 part mission    (16YU)
 FarrukhNajmi: ebXML RegRep 4.0 is being defined now. Interested parties should feed requirements 
   into that work.    (16YV)
 FarrukhNajmi: I can be contact point    (16YW)
 MikeDean: I'd like to see the goal addressed up front, as promote the global use of ontologies 
   by 1. ... 2. ... 3. ...    (16YX)
 KenBaclawski: I would like to see interoperability explicitly mentioned as a goal for the    (16YY)
 KenBaclawski: best practices.    (16YZ)
 DuaneNickull: interoperability and other requirements couldbe collected and documented in a 
   Requirements Document which would help us all understand what we might want to concentrate on.    (16Z0)
 DuaneNickull: interoperability is a requirement that reg-rep can help solve.  interoperability is not 
   what a reegistry is all about ipso facto    (16Z1)
 RexBrooks: I think a requirements document with use cases is a good idea. Registries contribute toward 
   that, enable it, but don't enforce or produce it.    (16Z2)
 Gerry Creager: Interoperability, correctly stated, isn't the sole function of an registry.  However, if 
   it doesn't help promote it from the start, we lose the opportunity to see a real federation evolve easily.    (16Z3)
 RexBrooks: true.    (16Z4)
 KenBaclawski: I agree that the registry is not about ontology interoperability per se.  That is why I 
   only want it mentioned in the best practices part.    (16Z5)
 LiDing: the best practice part focus on ontology creators but not ontology consumers    (16Z6)
 FarrukhNajmi: I am in listen + chat mode now and cannot speak into conf due to some logistical issues. 
   If any one needs my input just look for response in chat window.    (16Z7)
 FarrukhNajmi: ONTOREP    (16Z8)
 Lee Feigenbaum: I like OOPS but I don't know what the P and S stand for    (16Z9)
 FarrukhNajmi: Can someone speak my suggestion of ONTOREP as I think I cant be heard    (16ZA)
 LiDing: Collaborative Open Ontology Library    (16ZB)
 LiDing: (COOL)    (16ZC)
 FarrukhNajmi: OpenOntoRep    (16ZD)
 JohnGraybeal: COOL is used elsewhere, will be confusing    (16ZE)
 Lee Feigenbaum: OREP?    (16ZF)
 FarrukhNajmi: +1 on OREP    (16ZG)
 LiDing: Oori is MIT's student pungmul group    (16ZH)
 FarrukhNajmi: Yes    (16ZI)

//    (16X3)

4) Next Steps & Action Items:    (16PT)

 minutes captured in real time on this wiki by PeterYim / 2008.01.03-12:50 PST
 Attendees are requested to review the notes above, help clean it up, and make amendments and edits to better 
 reflect the proceedings of the session as they see fit (particularly where they are personally involved).    (16Q2)

Questions, Answers & Discourse:    (16VE)

Audio Recording of this Session    (16VM)