|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
I've volunteered to assemble/inventory the list of 'things' the OOR has
the past year in order to understand what we a) expect(ed) of an open
b) have done, and c) identify what remains.
From this list, which will include initial requirements and use cases,
the expectation is
to be able a) gain consensus, b) start to fill in the gaps, and c) to
partition work in
order to realize an OOR.
Some of the capabilities or services that are needed or expected have
Others have not. For instance, the 'explicit
generalization/specialization' may be part
of the 'mapping' capability already identified (but not completely
There will be a review and discussion of this 'list' at the 19 February
I will be emphasizing a spiral or evolutionary approach to the OOR to
learning. That is, we'll learn what needs to be done and how it should
be done. So that
we'll start off with basic functionality and then start adding
capabilities. In doing so
we'll also provide a decoupling of services from the core/basic
It would optimal if other repository efforts would contribute their
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 8:25 AM
> To: Obrst, Leo J.
> Cc: Jack Ring; OpenOntologyRepository-discussion;
> email@example.com; standard-upper-ontology@IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [oor-forum] Developing a standard for an
> Leo, Paola, Jack, et al.,
> LO> As John mentioned early on in his message, there is an Open
> > Ontology Repository effort at Ontolog, which is an open community
> > of practice. You might join and post to the ontolog OOR list.
> Yes, it is important not to split the efforts into two competing
> projects. I agree that the basic work should be done in the OOR
> group and that the SUO can be used to develop an IEEE standard
> (if and when a standard seems appropriate).
> PDM> but 'ontology requirements for sharing and reusing them' are
> > one thing, the 'project requirement for a repository/registry'
> > is another
> Yes, but a registry/repository has always been considered
> essential for any system of sharing and reusing. The two
> have been discussed together for ages upon ages.
> JR> I agree with your statements except for the precise meaning
> > of 'requirements.' I sense that you use the term to mean more
> > like 'post conditions for satisfaction' whereas most people
> > (and majority of PM's) use the term to mean the functions
> > and features of an envisioned system regardless of the symptoms
> > of the problematic situation.
> I used the term in the vague general sense of including everything
> that people usually include in the word 'requirements'. The exact
> rules for what should be included or excluded can be determined
> and revised as people start putting things in the list.
> In any case, this discussion should be moved to the OOR list,
> as Leo suggested. My primary concern, as I have stated all along,
> is that a fundamental requirement is that the ontologies in the
> repository should have explicit generalization/specialization
> links. That makes it into a hierarchy (partial ordering), which
> is a subset of the lattice of theories.
> _________________________________________________________________> Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/oor-forum/
> Subscribe: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OOR/