Re: Developing a standard for an ontology registry/repository
A project management point of view leads one to collect and analyze
requirements. In contrast, a holistic system point of view leads one to
discern a) the problematic situation, b) the underlying problem generation
system, c) an intervention strategy (preferably alternative ones) and d) the
usage concept for a future intervention system.
The project management point of view is useful for small, relatively static
situations but the holistic system point of view is essential for situations
high in extent, variety and ambiguity.
Aren't we faced with the latter?
----- Original Message -----
To: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@BESTWEB.NET>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: Developing a standard for an ontology registry/repository
However, there does seem to be some indication that a consensus
about an ontology registry/repository might be more realistic.
Therefore, we could use the SUO mailing list as a basis for
developing an IEEE standard for a registry/repository.
I am glad I see the word registry, as repository could possible
conflict the linked data model idea
it would be good to define what would repository/registry imply,
contrast the two options (or would a repository also be a registry and
also, from a project management point of view, it is advisable to do a
requirement analysis. This not just a bunch of people compiling a
wishlist, but a structured evaluation of what/why people would require
the effort, and how existing efforts to do meet such needs
the results of such an evaluation can be used to compile, or
complement, the existing wishlist
the ontolog community can be surveyed , provided the survey
questionnaire is compiled following requirements analysis structure
but the survey should be promoted in the open really, to get the wides
possible would be user base to provide input