Joint OOR-Ontolog-NCBO-CC-IAOA-OASIS "OpenOntologyRepository_IPR Policy and Issues" Panel Discussion (session-2) - Thu 16-Sep-2010    (2HFW)

Conference Call Details:    (2HGB)

Attendees:    (2HHA)

Resources    (2HHL)

Agenda & Proceedings:    (2HHW)

Panel Discussion Session: "OOR-IPR session 2: what are the IPR issues relating to open ontology repositories (and ontologies in general)?"    (2HHX)

Abstracts:    (2HI3)

This "OOR-IPR mini-series" will, hopefully, start a dialog among the global ontology community, to specifically address IPR issues relating to the "open ontology repository (OOR)" initiative. The discussion will, invariably, touch upon IPR issues pertaining to ontology in general as well.    (2HI5)

This mini-series is jointly organized by the OOR initiative, the Ontolog-community, NCBO (US National Center for Biomedical Ontology), CC (Creative Commons), IAOA (the International Association for Ontology and its Applications) and OASIS (Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards).    (2HI6)

Given the complexity of the issues involved, one can look as this mini-series to merely be the beginning of a quest, by the collaborating parties and their communities, to fully understand the issues, and to get themselves into a position to address them.    (2HI7)

In this 2nd session, we will try to find out what, really, are the IPR issues relating to open ontology repositories in particular, and to ontologies, or even the science and technology of Ontology, in general. We will attempt to enumerate the pertinent issues and try to mitigate or address them one-by-one, if we can.    (2HI8)

Please refer also to the background and thoughts collected during the process of organizing this mini-series, at: OpenOntologyRepository_IPR    (2HI9)

Check out the full proceedings of the Launch Session of this OOR-IPR mini-series - ConferenceCall_2010_09_09    (2HYZ)

Panel Members Briefings:    (2HIA)

i) GALEN, which was a large collaborative development in the 1990s. In that development, all attempts to determine shares of intellectual property proved both expensive and futile. It was eventually made open source as the only practical solution.    (2HZ2)

ii) The continuing saga with SNOMED, which is currently "half open" and supported by different governments joining the parent organisation. However the lack of a completely open license continues to be a major issue and cost of dealing with SNOMED. For example, the WHO and the SNOMED organisation have taken at least two years and untold legal and executive time to reach an agreement.    (2HZ3)

IP is intimately related to funding models.    (2HZ4)

Both GALEN and SNOMED's experience point to the difficulty of achieving a revenue stream for ontologies meant to enable interoperability without strong legal backing, at least in health care. The only organisations that do so as far as I know are those that are backed by some form of mandate - CPT for clinical procedures in the US, ICD-CM in the US (to a lesser degree), ( I don't know how MEDDRA is funded - the reporting standard for adverse drug reactions).    (2HZ5)

Closed IP does not work well, but alternatives are difficult to point to.    (2HZ6)

Transcript of the online chat during the session:    (2HIK)

 see raw transcript here.    (2HIL)
 (for better clarity, the version below is a re-organized and lightly edited chat-transcript.)
 Participants are welcome to make light edits to their own contributions as they see fit.    (2HIM)
    -- begin of chat session --    (2HIN)
	PeterYim: .    (2I08)
	Welcome to the Joint OOR-Ontolog-NCBO-CC-IAOA-OASIS "OpenOntologyRepository_IPR Policy and Issues" 
	 Panel Discussion (session-2) - Thu 16-Sep-2010    (2I09)
	* Topic: "OOR-IPR session 2: what are the IPR issues relating to open ontology repositories (and ontologies in general)?"    (2I0A)
	* Chair: Professor MarkMusen (NCBO; Stanford)    (2I0B)
	* Panelists:    (2HFZ)
	  o Mr. CameronRoss (Kojeware; OOR) - "Ecosystems, Ontology Repositories, and IPR"
	  o Professor AlanRector (University of Manchester) - Remarks: "The GALEN and SNOMED IPR experience"
	  o Dr. JohnSowa (Vivomind Intelligence; SIO) - Remarks: "Issues with Patents"
	  o Mr. BrucePerens (original author of the "Open Source Definition") - Commentary 
	  o Mr. JohnWilbanks (VP of Science, Creative Commons) - Commentary 
	  o Mr. PeterYim (Co-convener, Ontolog & OOR; Secretary, IAOA) - "Questions to ALL: what are our issues now?"    (2I0C)
	see details on session page at:    (2I0D)
	.    (2I0E)
	anonymous morphed into TerryLongstreth    (2I0F)
	JohnWilbanks: PeterYim, I am on the line but muted    (2I0G)
	JohnWilbanks: in a noisy environment    (2I0H)
	PeterYim: Hi John    (2I0I)
	anonymous morphed into AlanRector    (2I0J)
	AliHashemi: Hello all!    (2I0K)
	YuriyMilov: Hi All    (2I0L)
	JohnWilbanks: PeterYim, can you speak up or increase your mic volume?    (2I0M)
	RaviSharma: @Cameron: why should OOR Support proprietary extensions? as mentioned in your slide.    (2I0N)
	CameronRoss: @RaviSharma - Proprietary extension allow commercial entities to utilize the OOR.    (2I0O)
	BrucePerens: BrucePerens is on the line.    (2I0P)
	PeterYim: great ... Hi Bruce    (2I0Q)
	RaviSharma: @Cameron: i view the OOR as a container, kindly compare the keystone unix Kernel with 
	technologies involved in creating and supporting OOR lifecycle, I also envisage OOR lifecycle to 
	have ecosystem like evolution where some technologies and ontologies will not be able to survive?    (2I0R)
	CameronRoss: @RaviSharma - OOR being a compilation of the OOR content, the software used to 
	implement the OOR and the federation of specific OOR instances. The tools for creating and 
	supporting the OOR life-cycle help to define the content... the keystone would result from the uses 
	of this content. Imagine that the OOR grows in terms of content and we have all kinds of 
	applications that build on top of it (define applications in a very general sense here). Now, take 
	away the OOR... ouch!    (2I0S)
	RaviSharma: @Cameron: excellent ELP    (2I0T)
	AlanRector: One moment please - moving the microphone nearer I got cut off    (2I0U)
	AliHashemi: Are there slides online?    (2I0V)
	PeterYim: @Ali - no slides for Alan's remarks    (2I0W)
	JohnWilbanks: this point is essential - the need to clarify and edit ontologies, not just refer to 
	them    (2I0X)
	JohnWilbanks: here's an old example from 2007 - 
	ng_of_the_GO.    (2I0Y)
	JohnWilbanks: or here:    (2I0Z)
	JohnWilbanks: "The part_of relation in all OBO ontologies (and elsewhere in the RDF distribution) is 
	normalized to before being included in the Neurocommons RDF 
	distribution."    (2I10)
	CameronRoss: @Alan - Contributions to Eclipse are also "viral" in the sense that you must contribute 
	to the project under the Eclipse Public License. The primary difference, I believe, is that the EPL 
	is open whereas the contribution to SNOMED is not.    (2I11)
	FrankOlken: Hi    (2I12)
	BrucePerens: I would like to speak about challenging the patent.    (2I13)
	RaviSharma: @Dr. John Sowa - for obvious reasons given by you - Can such a patent be made to be 
	rescinded or there is too much process involved?    (2I14)
	RaviSharma: @Bruce and John: can we request patent office to open their process in this particular 
	case to determine if SMEs who understand Text Processing, Ontology, concepts were consulted or can 
	now be inducted to review?    (2I15)
	JohnWilbanks: +1 for public patent foundation    (2I16)
	FrankOlken: Public Patent Foundation web site:    (2I17)
	PeterYim: @Bruce - would you please type out the name and contact for Dan R so we can be sure we got 
	his name right, please    (2I18)
	JohnWilbanks:    (2I19)
	BrucePerens: Daniel Ravisher at    (2I1A)
	FrankOlken: PUBPAT Board of Directors - Daniel B. Ravicher, President and Executive Director    (2I1B)
	JohnWilbanks: email is dan at pubpat dot org    (2I1C)
	JohnSowa: I suggest that Peter starts a wiki page (each) to collect prior art that is pertinent to 
	the two example problematic patent/patent-application    (2I1D)
	PeterYim: will do ... thank you for the suggestion, John    (2I1E)
	PeterYim: @JohnSowa and All - I have initialized the wiki pages (to collect prior art for your two 
	artifacts) ... see under:    (2I1F)
	RaviSharma: @All- can we also sign a petition from community for patent office.    (2I1G)
	RaviSharma: @ALL- I would like to know opinion in this group whether Ontology as a concept should 
	not be communicated by us to be non-patentable as it is based on reasoning - (foundation of free 
	thinking and use of intellect), common knowledge from centuries, and connectedness to knowledge some 
	prior and some current that is inherently difficult to parse and separate.    (2I1H)
	JohnWilbanks:    (2I1I)
	RaviSharma: @JohnWilbanks - on the referred site above there is no entry for other-patents search 
	for Ontology?    (2I1J)
	CameronRoss: So I guess ignorance is bliss!    (2I1K)
	CameronRoss: @JohnWilbanks - Could you elaborate a bit on ontology interoperability v.s. openness?    (2I1L)
	CameronRoss: @JohnWilbanks - Got it. Thanks.    (2I1M)
	RaviSharma: IS the question valid - whether ontologies are patentable?    (2I1N)
	CameronRoss: @BrucePerens - What are your thoughts on the EPL 1.0?    (2I1O)
	CameronRoss: EPL = Eclipse Public Lincese    (2I1P)
	JohnWilbanks: there is also the issue of US *public funding* for vast amounts of ontology work...    (2I1Q)
	BrucePerens: Freedom of thinking went out with the recent court decision in Vernor v. Autodesk. The 
	publisher can now license the WAY you use the information, as Sun has tried to do for a decade with 
	the Java reference books.    (2I1R)
	JohnWilbanks: <ducks>    (2I1S)
	CameronRoss: not funded = not sustainable    (2I1T)
	PeterYim: refer to PeterYim's slides #5 to #12 on "Questions to All participants"    (2I1U)
	PeterYim: #6: Are you planning to contribute to the OOR effort; if yes, what would your 
	contribution(s) be?    (2I1V)
	JohnWilbanks: CC is on board    (2I1W)
	JohnWilbanks: we can bring our own research to the table    (2I1X)
	AliHashemi: 1) Yes (mainly COLORE). 2) Software/services(?)[requires other resources to be better 
	developed] - more so things that work with ontologies than ontologies themselves    (2I1Y)
	CameronRoss: Maybe, contributing mostly code and infrastructure, but the degree of my contribution 
	will be dictated by the level of commitment of others and also on the licensing model(s) that is 
	eventually adopted.    (2I1Z)
	PeterYim: #7: If you are contributing code, what would be your (top 2 or 3) open license 
	preferences?    (2I20)
	BrucePerens: Bruce says GPL, BSD, LGPL together provide all the common sorts of Open Source license 
	and are compatible with each other.    (2I21)
	RaviSharma: @All - since there is no kernel agreed for ontologies or for OOR, unix parallels may not 
	be directly applicable?    (2I22)
	CameronRoss: License preferences: in order of preferences for OOR code: #1: EPL, #2: BSD, #3 some 
	other gifting license. Not acceptable from my perspective would be GPL.    (2I23)
	RaviSharma: general open license    (2I24)
	PeterYim: @Ravi - not sure what license you are referring to in the above statement.    (2I25)
	PeterYim: #8: If you are contributing content, what would be your (top 2 or 3) open license 
	preferences?    (2I26)
	CameronRoss: Content license preference at this point would be CC-by 3.0, but this isn't all that 
	clear to me at this point.    (2I27)
	BrucePerens: BSD, or just declare it to be in the public domain if you don't care about attribution.    (2I28)
	Pat Cassidy1: For ontology content, I suggest that the freest possible license be used; if not 
	public domain, then a gift license with at most an attribution requirement. If control of the name 
	of an ontology is desirable, I would suggest that the name be trademarked.    (2I29)
	PeterYim: #9; If you are planning to run an ontology repository ... Will you federate with the 
	open instance of the OOR? ... What kind of software license do you plan to adopt? ... What kind of 
	content license do you plan to adopt?    (2I2A)
	CameronRoss: Yes! Absolutely! As long as the OOR interfaces were reasonable to interface with. 
	Current plan is to use EPL 1.0 for software and CC-by 3.0.    (2I2B)
	PeterYim: #10: Should we, as a community, take a position on Software patents? if so, what 
	position should we take?    (2I2C)
	RaviSharma: consensus communique    (2I2D)
	BrucePerens: Unfortunately software patenting is potentially a show-stopper for Open Source, so you 
	need to do something about it. The W3C process is probably good.    (2I2E)
	PeterYim: #11: Should we, as a community, take a position on Ontology patents? if so, what 
	position should we take?    (2I2F)
	RaviSharma: Peter your Q lists what i wanted to communicate anyway. Thanks.    (2I2G)
	RaviSharma: Can we attempt a communique style brief as consensus of community in the next 2-3 wks?    (2I2H)
	RaviSharma: Ontologies should not be patentable, but some effort attribution ought to be allowed.    (2I2I)
	CameronRoss: I don't think that ontologies should be patentable, but I see the whole patent 
	situation to be entirely misguided.    (2I2J)
	CameronRoss: I guess we should take a position, but I wouldn't dedicate a lot of resources to it... 
	its seems like a black hole... I think that our resources would be better spent just doing real 
	work.    (2I2K)
	PeterYim: #12: Any suggestion on how we can get open efforts funded ... ?    (2I2L)
	BrucePerens: Write grants?    (2I2M)
	AliHashemi: Re funding: case studies demonstrating real $ savings for companies?    (2I2N)
	AliHashemi: i.e. form a committee or a group via ontolog to demonstrate a business case for open 
	efforts in ontologies?    (2I2O)
	AliHashemi: (dunno if this is pie in the sky...)    (2I2P)
	AliHashemi: case can/should also be made to government organizations. Electronic health records, 
	etc... The case just needs to be documented and made.    (2I2Q)
	BrucePerens: Someone's going to have to tilt at this windmill some day.    (2I2R)
	RaviSharma: Peter: Will some of the answers in chat find their way on the active pages?    (2I2S)
	PeterYim: @Ravi - the chat transcript will be captured onto the session page shortly (as usual)    (2I2T)
	RaviSharma: Thanks.    (2I2U)
	BrucePerens: Bye.    (2I2V)
	CameronRoss: Thanks everyone.    (2I2W)
	PeterYim: thanks    (2I2X)
	PeterYim: -- session ended 12:27pm PDT --    (2I2Y)
    -- end of chat session --    (2HIO)

Audio Recording of this Session    (2HIT)

For the record ...    (2HJ1)

How To Join (while the session is in progress)    (2HJ2)