Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1 Open Ontology Repository Session OOR-Team Presentation Ontology Summit 2008 Interoperability Week, NIST Gaithersburg, MD MikeDean, LeoObrst, PeterYim,

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "1 Open Ontology Repository Session OOR-Team Presentation Ontology Summit 2008 Interoperability Week, NIST Gaithersburg, MD MikeDean, LeoObrst, PeterYim,"— Presentation transcript:

1 1 Open Ontology Repository Session OOR-Team Presentation Ontology Summit 2008 Interoperability Week, NIST Gaithersburg, MD MikeDean, LeoObrst, PeterYim, et al. April 29, 2008 v 1.00

2 2 Agenda: Presenting the OOR Initiative 1)What is the OOR? Overview, rationale and motivations –Leo Obrst 2)What do users expect? How do these needs align with the rationale? –Ken Baclawski 3)How do these needs translate into OOR system requirements? How do these satisfy the rationale? –Evan Wallace 4)What are some existing efforts? How do these address or satisfy the rationale? –Bruce Bargmeyer 5)What is the roadmap to developing/delivering these requirements in an OOR implementation effort? How does the roadmap satisfy the rationale? –Mike Dean

3 3 Overview, Rationale & Motivations Leo Obrst

4 4 Overview Recognizing of the need for an Open Ontology Repository, the co- conveners got their act together: –2001 DAML Ontology Library (Mike Dean) –2005 MITRE Study on OWL/RDF Registry & Repository (Leo Obrst) –2002/2005 CIM3-CWE / CODS initiative (Peter Yim) : Open Ontology Repository initiative - Planning Meeting –Proposed to have OOR as the theme for Ontology Summit : OOR Initiative - Founding Members Conference Call –Open Ontology Repository (OOR) Initiative came into being, with about 40 participants (active participants, as well as observers) –Team adopts Mission Statement : OOR team adopts their Ontology Repository definition ~04.10: joined with the OntologySummit2008 effort and co- organized four OOR-Panel Sessions: –Covering: Technology Landscape, Expectations & Requirements, and Ontology of Ontologies OOR team virtual activities being hosted within the Ontolog collaborative work environment, for the time being

5 5 The charter of the Open Ontology Repository (OOR) Initiative is to the promote the global use and sharing of ontologies by: 1. establishing a hosted registry-repository; 2. enabling and facilitating open, federated, collaborative ontology repositories, and 3. establishing best practices for expressing interoperable ontology and taxonomy work in registry-repositories. where, An ontology repository is a facility where ontologies and related information artifacts can be stored, retrieved and managed. -- definition as adopted by the OOR-team / Homepage:

6 6 Rationale & Motivations (1) Why are we interested in an OOR and what purpose does it serve? Isnt the Semantic Web notion of distributed islands of semantics sufficient as a de facto repository? –If you put it out there, will they come? –If you build it better and put it out there, will they prefer yours? –History does not show this laissez faire field of dreams is good reality –The "clickable" web has been very successful in employing this strategy for html documents –However the use and content of the semantic web has different characteristics that make it far less tolerant of the change and frequent errors which are commonplace on the clickable web. Distinguishing characteristics of the Semantic Web –Machines rather than humans are the primary consumers of content. Errors that a human may be able to diagnose and fix (such as a change in location of a document) are likely fatal for machine processing –The use of owl:imports creates a strong transitive dependency between ontology documents; changes in any imported document (imported directly or through nested import) can cause the resulting import closure to be inconsistent or to change its meaning or computational characteristics significantly. –Ontologies convey a precise meaning with an unambiguous machine interpretation. This means that, when using this content, careful selection and precise reference is critical.

7 7 Rationale & Motivations (2) Value Added to the content by an Open Ontology Repository/Registry: –The OOR is reliably available –The OOR is persistent and sustainable, so you can be confident when committing to its use –The OOR has information about when, why, and how an ontology has changed, so you can be aware of changes that may effect its usability –You can find ontologies easily –Ontologies are registered, so you know who built them –Metadata provides the ontology purpose, KR language, user group, content subject area, etc. –The OOR includes mappings, so you can connect ontologies to other ontologies –The OOR content has quality and value, as gauged by recognized criteria –The OOR supports services, so that ontologies can map and be mapped, find and be found, can review/certify and be reviewed/certified, can hook your own services into and can use the services others have hooked in –Ontologies can reuse or extend other ontologies, including common middle and upper ontologies –The OOR can be easily extended Ref. also – opening post to the OOR-team ref definition: registry vs. repository; goals, etc. -

8 8 Open Ontology Repository User Needs & Requirements Ken Baclawski

9 9 OOR - what is in scope? Repository: "An ontology repository is a facility where ontologies and related information artifacts can be stored, retrieved and managed" –first: the persistent store for ontologies –then, the registry for ontologies in the repository –then progressively, the value-added services Ontology: –all types of artifacts on the ontology spectrum from folksonomies, terminologies, controlled vocabularies, taxonomies, thesauri,... to data-schema, data-models... to OWL ontologies... and, axiomatized logical theories from shared understanding... to ontological commitments... to the future of standards Open: –open access; compliance with open standards; open technology (with open source); open knowledge (open content); open collaboration (with transparent community process) –open to integration with non-open repositories via an open interface

10 10 OOR Users Needs (1) Who are the users of an OOR –ontology developers (individuals or distributed teams) –ontology centers and institutions –end-users (human) who need to search/browse an ontology –software agents (machine) who need to use the ontologies –application developers When –design time –run-time (dynamic, real-time, on-the-fly,...)

11 11 OOR Users Needs (2) Through the two virtual panel sessions and our online discourse, we heard from experts among the panelists and participants coming from different domains: 2008_03_27 - Thursday: Joint OOR-OntologySummit2008 Panel Discussion: "An Open Ontology Repository: Rationale, Expectations & Requirements - Session-1" - Chair: LeoObrst & FabianNeuhaus; Panelists: WilliamBug, EvanWallace, JohnLMcCarthy, KenBaclawski, PeterBenson & RexBrooks _04_03 - Thursday: Joint OOR-OntologySummit2008 Panel Discussion: "An Open Ontology Repository: Rationale, Expectations & Requirements - Session-2" - Chair: LeoObrst & FabianNeuhaus; Panelists: DougLenat, DekeSmith, MarciaZeng, DeniseBedford, PatHayes, MalaMehrotra & RobRaskin -

12 12 OOR Users Needs (3) The top needs came out to: that there is a well-maintained persistent store (with high availability and performance) where ontological work can be stored, shared and accessed having ontologies properly registered and governed, with provenance and versioning support, and made available (logically) in one place so that they can be browsed, discovered, queried, analysed, validated and reused allow ontologies to be open and unencumbered by IPR constraints, in terms of access and reuse services that can be provided across disparate ontological artifacts to support cross-domain interoperability, mapping, application and making inferences … and having such semantic services be properly registered and available to support peer OORs (in addition to the panel proceedings cited above) ref. IM chat/discussion: and, for example, input from AndrewSchain (NASA/HQ):

13 13 A sample of the input on Needs and Expectations … based on summary slides received from some of the OOR-Panelists on the & Requirements Panel Sessions

14 What is impossible to do right now, but, if you could do it, would fundamentally change your business? 1990 Joel Arthur Barker Codification at source ! –Common metadata (ISO /eOTD) an end to data mapping –Requirement specifications (ISO /eOTD-i- xml ) an end to incomplete data –Data provenance (ISO ) an end to inaccurate information Vision of the Future Peter Benson NATO codification system as the foundation for the eOTD, ISO and ISO 8000 Faster data – Better data – Cheaper data

15 Codification at Source - Peter Benson Using standards to automate the data supply chain Data requestor Data provider Sub eOTD-i-xml (data requirements statement) ISO eOTD-q-xml (query) ISO Sub-Tier eOTD-q-xml Sub-Tier eOTD-r-xml eOTD-r-xml (data exchange) ISO Faster data – Better data – Cheaper data

16 16 Rex Brooks: Content Provider-Repository Builder Focus on Architecture, Registry-Repository & Emergency Data Exchange Language Reference Information Model (EDXL-RIM)

17 17 Rex Brooks: Content Provider-Repository Builder Focus on Architecture, Registry-Repository & Emergency Data Exchange Language Reference Information Model (EDXL-RIM)

18 18 Developer Requirements - Neil Sakar / Ken Baclawski Must have the ability to browse and query small segments of an ontology. Good to have the ability to dynamically curate and suggest changes via the user community. Ideally, it can be used to navigate across inferred information that is associated with a small set of terms and that comes from many ontologies.

19 19 End User Requirements - Neil Sakar / Ken Baclawski Must have – Ability to efficiently navigate multiple hierarchies – Consistency across multiple ontologies Good to have – Ability to provide live feedback – Allow annotating relationships or propose new terms Ideally, it can – Support scientific hypothesis testing

20 20 OOR needs for content /application providers Mala Mehrotra Content developers: Discover related terms/axioms/models for reuse –Context – collaboration groups of concepts region (geographic, biological, political) –Depth/detail month in SUMO vs. monthDescription in DAML time ontologies –Differences in competing models TimeInterval in SUMO vs DurationDescription in DAML –Degree of Crossover/Overlap More than just imports closure Orthogonality measures across ontologies Application developers: Interoperate using multiple ontologies –Create formalized mapping relationships –Find mapping relationships

21 21 Infrastructure Needs Mala Mehrotra Cognitive Tools for discovery –Collaborating groups of concepts used in applications –Implicit relationships across resources –Ontological/Taxonomy hierarchy browsing –Human-machine collaboration mode Mapping Tools for capturing inter-resources relationships Need formal representation of relationships for reasoners –A large repertoire of relationships –Multiple ontological representations –Mechanisms to represent formalism in human-readable form Our Pragati Expozé tool addresses these issuesPragati

22 22 What Wed Want a Good Host to Provide A commitment to use – to have contributors all provide content under – some Creative Commons license, as opposed to e.g. a GNU license Retention of the provenance/lineage of contributed ontological content Agreement on some of the most fundamental ontological relations Agreement on a small set of inter-ontology alignment relations Doug Lenat Cycorp Content that Cycorp could provide to be be hosted: * OpenCyc ( 100% free even for commercial * ResearchCyc ( free for R&D purposes In both cases, there are ontologies plus inference engines and API-level and graphical interface tools Meta-level message: Look at OKKAM, LarKC, etc., and decide what role, if any, OOR can/should play, and how it should tie in with those other efforts.

23 23 Whats in OpenCyc Doug Lenat (#$isa ) (#$genls 99198) (#$disjointWith 6114) (#$resultIsa 4277) (#$resultGenl 1206) (#$argIsa (#$argGenl 5398) (#$arg1Isa 16748) (#$arg1Genl 2354) (#$arg2Isa (#$arg2Genl 2283) (#$arg3Isa 3486) (#$argFormat 5493) (#$arg2Format 3320) (#$functionalInArgs 1427) (#$arity 16416) (#$arityMin 958) (#$comment 57305) (#$genlPreds 7440) (#$negationInverse 990) (#$genlMt 26078) (#$denotationInEnglish ) (#$synonymousExternalConcept 13916) Explicitly: 300k terms; 14k predicates; 57k classes; 2 million assertions Implicitly: There are infinitely more nonatomic terms and inferred assertions More subtle but crucial point: There are infinitely many contexts (microtheories) defined compositionally rather than having only explicitly reified contexts This means there are 596k isa assertions in OpenCyc E.g., mapping between a term in OpenCyc and a WordNet synset

24 24 Needs vs. Rationale The Needs and Expectations map well to the Rationale cited in the previous slide A community OOR will provide us with (from slide #11 from Denise Bedford's brief) –Knowledge value –Collaboration value –Shared process value However, further to the intellectual discourse on what an OOR should be, the implementors of the OOR will also need to answer questions like: –How could we make sure the OOR is still around in 100 years? –What can be done about assuring the sustainability of the resources, expertise, quality of the ontologies in the OOR and the services provided? –How can we ensure long term value, commitment and continuous improvement to the OOR?

25 25 Open Ontology Repository Translating User Needs into Requirements for OOR Implementation Evan Wallace

26 26 … more input from the OOR-Panel sessions … based on summary slides received from the panelists on the virtual panel sessions

27 27 Current ontology reuse challenges - Elisa Kendall & Evan Wallace Ontologies developed for programs such as the DARPA DAML program are aging –Ontology pages have not been revised since 2004 (see –Most recent submission was actually in 2003 (see –Community knowledge about development methodology & facts about the world relevant to the IC community have continued to evolve Ontologies are often published in an author s user space which is ephemeral. When these ontologies move, references to them are invalidated and references within the artifacts must be updated but sometimes are not (e.g. OWL Time) Research ontologies tend to be focused on demonstration-related content and are by nature incomplete, with varying coverage and levels of granularity due to funding limitations

28 28 Challenges in deploying an effective OOR - Elisa Kendall & Evan Wallace Linking among models built from different metamodels and for different CoPs (business modelers versus knowledge engineers) Intellectual Property concerns particularly w.r.t. content based on International Standards Ensuring availability and persistence Maintenance and refreshment of content –Need long term resource commitment –Need staff with correct technical skills/knowledge –What policies, processes, tools and automation are needed? –How will freshness be monitored?

29 29 good practices for reusability - Elisa Kendall Well-specified policies for vocabulary management, metadata, and provenance enable trust Commitment to forming, accommodating, serving, & working with a community of users is critical Emerging portals (e.g., NCBOs BioPortal) provide the repository, publish relevant metadata, manage versions, and provide web-based access to facilitate collaboration & reuse Minimal principles for vocabulary publication & management* –Use URIs for naming – publish not only the URIs but policies for URI persistence, ownership, delegation of responsibility for specific vocabularies, etc. –Provide adequate readable documentation –Articulate maintenance policies that specify whether or not changes can be made, the process for doing so, a feedback loop for user community involvement –Identify versions –Publish a formal schema in a recommended standard Essential metadata –Identify sources, creation & revision dates, etc. at the ontology level (minimum) –Knowledge provenance for business & government intelligence may require detail at the fact/individual level* –Quality, trustworthiness assessment metrics for the vocabulary & source materials –Licensing, IP limitations *

30 30 Steps towards an OOR enabling reuse - Elisa Kendall Design a repository structure, version strategy, & naming conventions Determine metrics for content assessment / evaluation Create rules & procedures for content acceptance Adopt metadata schema for annotation & assessment information Determine mechanisms for content annotation / classification & querying Create a strategy/schedule for deployment

31 31 Translating Needs to Requirements Active discussion on the matter evolved on the [oor-forum] list, initiated from threads like: –post from EvanWallace (NIST): & /msg00011.html –post from ToddSchneider (Raytheon): breaking it down to: –general requirements (scalability, distributed repository support, platform independence,...) –requirements to support search and discovery –requirements to support subscription and notification –management requirements, & –governance requirements

32 32 Ontology Language Requirements Bare minimum –OWL –Common Logic (CL) Expected evolution –OWL OWL2 + SWRL –CL IKL Desirable editions –RDFS –Topic Maps –SBVR exchange form –?

33 33 Top User Needs (1 st bullet) Well-maintained persistent store with high availability and performance for storage, sharing and access: –Maintenance mechanisms and interfaces –Long term storage with backup (how often?) –Persistent references and structured reference scheme –Adequate throughput and uptime percentage –HTTP support for upload/access including redirection (303 response code handling)

34 34 Top User Needs (2 nd bullet) Ontology content is properly registered and governed (managed?), with provenance and versioning support, and made available (logically) in one place so that it can be browsed, discovered, queried, analyzed, validated, and reused –Must support interfaces for registration and management –Must support storage and retrieval of provenance information –Must handle versioning of content and associated metadata –Must somehow integrate distributed content –Must support user browsing of content and metadata –Must support both user and machine interfaces for querying and accessing content and metadata

35 35 Top User Needs (3 rd bullet) Allow ontologies to be open and unencumbered by IPR constraints, in terms of access and reuse –Do we mean: allow or require? –Need to capture information at registration time about license type

36 36 Top User Needs (4 th bullet) Provide services across disparate ontological artifacts to support cross-domain interoperability, mapping, application and making inferences …and having such semantic services be properly registered and available to support peer OORs –This is a research area –Mapping types need to be defined –Semantic services need to be defined

37 37 Next steps Determine minimum content types and formats to support and minimum repository capabilities Refine relevant requirements –workflows: manual and automated (functions, roles, responsibilities, and processes) –define supporting interfaces –associated data requirements

38 38 To Enable the Management and Services specified in the Requirements we need to capture a set of metadata about the ontologies … here are some of the input from the Panel Session On Ontology of Ontologies

39 39 Objective Michael Gruninger This is based on the communique from the 2007 Ontology Summit that took place April 22-23, 2007 in Gaithersburg, Maryland, at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Provide a framework that ensures that we can support diversity without divergence, so that we can maintain sharability and reusability among the different approaches to ontologies. To this end, we can define a set of characteristics common to all approaches and then propose a set of features that can be used to distinguish among different approaches.

40 40 Dimensions Michael Gruninger We can identify a set of dimensions that can be used to distinguish among different approaches to ontologies. There are two kinds of dimensions: Semantic - how an ontology specifies the meaning of its vocabulary –Expressiveness of the ontology representation language –Level of structure –Representational granularity Pragmatic - the purpose and context in which the ontology is designed and used –Intended use –Role of automated reasoning –Descriptive vs prescriptive –Design methodology –Governance

41 41 OMV - Ontology Metadata Vocabulary Peter Haase OMV is … a metadata schema –Captures reuse-relevant information about an ontology OMV consists of … core and extensions –OMV Core: fundamental information about an ontology and its life cycle –OMV Extensions: detailed account on specific phases of an ontology life cycle OMV is designed … as an ontology OMV is realized … in OWL DL Website

42 42 Applications of OMV Peter Haase Numerous existing and planned applications of OMV –Ontology Registries in NeOn Oyster as Open Source implementation Centrasite as commercial product of Software AG –Watson - Gateway to the Semantic Web Web interface for searching ontologies and semantic documents –Stanford BMIR intend to use OMV in Protege and their Bioportal ontology repository –OMG intend to use OMV in their ontology repository OMV development sustained by OMV Consortium –Current members: UPM, AIFB, TU Berlin, Stanford BMIR –Looking for wider adoption / standardization in the community –Opportunity to join, contribute, collaborate!

43 43 Requirements vs. Rationale Again, the Requirements map well to the Rationale cited in the previous slide, additionally, though Unlike R&D, what's not interesting there could still be crucial in implementation and in production –for example delivering high availability, performance, even security, spam control... these are almost irrelevant to serving ontologies, yet essential to having a viable OOR For the *real* implementation of the OOR initiative, we would still need: –the proper Organizational Model that would deliver the previously mentioned needs (like sustainability,... etc.) –a viable Operating (Business) Model, and –most importantly, the community, and the skills and generosity of its membership, to get this off the ground

44 44 Existing Efforts Bruce Bargmeyer … based on input from the OOR-Panel on Ontology Registry and Repository Technology & Infrastructure Landscape

45 45 eXtended Metadata Registry (XMDR) Bruce Bargmeyer What XMDR Brings to the Table: Use cases - semantics challenges - and Requirements Potential design specifications –Proposed specifications for ISO/IEC Edition 3 – A UML Model, definitions, and OWL ontology Modular software architecture and open source software modules Open Source XMDR software Test content – concept systems including thesauri, taxonomies, ontologies A group of participants (XMDR project) that has considerable experience in this area. See:

46 46 Modular XMDR Archtitecture Bruce Bargmeyer Registry Store Search & Content Serving (Jena, Lucene) XMDR metamodel (OWL & xml schema) standard XMDR files Logic Index Content Loading & Transformation (Lexgrid & custom) Human User Interface (HTML fromJSP and javascript; Exhibit) Metadata Sources concept systems, data elements USERS Web Browsers…..Client Software Application Program Interface (REST) Authentication Service Validation (XML Schema) Mapping Engine Logic Indexer (Jana & Pellet) Text Indexer (Lucene) Metamodel specs (UML & Editing) (Poseidon, Protege) XMDR data model & exchange format XML, RDF, OWL Text Index Postgres Database Third Party Software

47 47 DAML Ontology Library Mike Dean Created early in the DARPA Agent Markup Language program –Organize content –Promote reuse –Demonstrate adoption 282 DAML+OIL and OWL ontologies submitted from October 2000 – December 2003 Cited in several ISWC papers –Property (Feature) use across libraries Largely replaced by Ontaria and SchemaWeb Available at – now archived at W3C

48 48 Lessons Learned Mike Dean Curation/quality control –Many users desired some indication of use and quality of the ontologies, e.g. user ratings Cacheing –Many links subsequently became unavailable –Desirable to store (and make available) local copies

49 49 NCBO BioPortal Mark Musen The National Center for Biomedical Ontology ( is developing BioPortal, an open-source repository of ontologies, terminologies, and thesauri of importance in biomedicine. An early version of BioPortal is accessible at Users can access the BioPortal content interactively via Web browsers or programmatically via Web services.

50 50 BioPortal will offer Mark Musen Ontology repository functionality Linkages among different ontologies Community-based peer review and ontology annotation Linkages between ontology content and related online data repositories Support for communities of ontology users and developers

51 51 OASIS ebXML RegRep Farrukh Najmi A generic registry / repository standard –ebRIM = meta infomodel, ebRS = services and protocols –Approved as OASIS and ISO standards –Version 4 of RegRep expected in 2008 –Highly extensible Not specifically an Ontology repository, but can be made so –ebXML RegRep Profile for OWL-Lite is an approved specification Has rich feature set to support use cases and architecture –Extensible metamodel, extensible protocol, stored queries, extensible relationships, service model, validation, cataloging, subscription & notification, role-based access control and authorization, change history, federation / federated query, SOAP and REST bindings, Java API (JAXR) freebXML Registry provides a royalty-free open source implementation Is more a toolkit than an out-of-box solution

52 52 ebXML RegRep as an OOR Server: A Proposal - Farrukh Najmi Build upon RegRep 4.0 impl from Wellfleet Software Implement OWL-Lite Profile (modulo RegRep 4) RegRep does not provide Ontology specific UI, use Protege Integrate RegRep 4.0 with Protege such that –RegRep serves as backend for Multi-user Protege client –Protege reasoning engine serves as Reasoning plugin for RegRep Initially deploy a single Root OOR instance with pilot users playing various roles in the collaborative ontology management use cases –Use OpenID as distributed identity management solution Later facilitate deployment of Community-specific OORs (e.g. Medical, GIS, Defense...)

53 53 What Does CIM3 Do? Peter Yim Mission: to enable more effective distributed collaboration and virtual enterprise through bootstrapping collective intelligence over the Internet Doing business as:, and – the business arm of the company – the collaborative work environments where client Communities of Practice and distributed team workspaces are hosted – the research arm, and holder of the companys open technology, content and other intellectual properties Products/Services: providing an ISP/ASP based Collaborative Work Environment (CWE) infrastructure that enables distributed project teams, virtual enterprise partners and communities of practice to work effectively over the Internet.

54 54 CIM3's potential role in OOR - PeterYim provide the plumbing (the bottom layer of the technology stack) - a robust hosted (hardware and network) infrastructure for OOR – Network Facility: Tier-1 IPv4 Internet hosting facility (IPv6 ready) 100Mbps bandwidth into the Internet backbone (upgradable to 1Gbps in short order) Backbone: multiple OC192 & Gige self-healing fiber-ring (among the top 10 networks in the world as measured by connectivity to the rest of the Internet.) – Linux Servers (mainly on IBM 1u boxes) Triple redundant storage (in 2 locations) Locked-down system environment, with spam-filtering and content filtering capabilities provide a collaborative work environment for the OOR team help facilitate the distributed teamwork - project coordination and management

55 55 Open Ontology Repository Roadmap Mike Dean

56 56 OOR Is … An open source software platform 1 or more public instantiations of that platform A sustainable organization (Lots of potential parallelism here)

57 57 ApacheApache-like Software Platform Architectural framework (internal APIs, core representation standards, processing pipeline) A few core modules (basic registry, GUI, web service interfaces, …) Lots of optional modules (pick and choose when instantiating) –Quality and gatekeeping (basic checks, usage-based, community ranking, curation, etc.) –Languages (OWL, RDFS, Common Logic, UML, SKOS, etc.) –Mapping and translation –Federation (bi-directional, one way) –Repository (expanded persistence) –Editing (access control, versioning) –Encapsulations of existing ontology services –…

58 58 OOR Federation Other OOR instances –P2P (ish) –Easiest case - we have full control Collaborative ontology editing environments (knoodl, Semantic MediaWiki, BioPortal, CODS, etc.)knoodlSemantic MediaWikiBioPortal CODS –Want to cooperate rather than compete Other registries/repositories Loose ontologies posted on the WWW –Add metadata and apply services

59 59 Open OOR platform software should be open source (like Apache) –Probably use one of the licenses from OOR instantiations can set their own policies with respect to ontology content licensing Accommodates –Open source content –Private instantiations behind firewalls –Commercially licensed content (e.g. ResearchCyc) and services OOR organization should do whatever it can to promote the adoption of ontologies and related technologies that benefit the community

60 60 Public Services At least one central instantiation –Showcase for the technology Employ many/all optional modules –Should include some sort of registry of OORs or OOR DNS –Might federate ontologies from domain-specific public OORs –Primary focus on open source ontologies – is already taken; Mike Dean has registered & –Peter Yim has volunteered supporting infrastructure, initially

61 61 OOR Organization Support Volunteers (now) Funded OOR proposals (hopefully soon) Collaborative projects/proposals citing OOR –Enhances credibility of both parties –Most immediate path forward Endowment Acquisition by another sustainable organization (Apache Foundation, W3C, OMG, …) Should adopt a W3C-like persistence policy for software and contentpersistence policy

62 62 Linking Open Data Ontologies as (meta) data –Adopt their conventions Nice visual depiction of increasing inter- connections A community linked by best practices and a cool logo

63 63 Strawman Phase 1 6 month time horizon Basic registry and repository –Might build off XMDR Some federation capability Initial versions of architectural framework and core modules Support for at least 1 language –Other optional modules as they become available Specific open source license selected 1 or more instantiations

64 64 Going Forward – archives Next OOR telecon –Friday, May 9, noon EDT Calling for: –Collaborators / contributors –Developers –A cool logo!

65 65 Open Discussion Q & A

Download ppt "1 Open Ontology Repository Session OOR-Team Presentation Ontology Summit 2008 Interoperability Week, NIST Gaithersburg, MD MikeDean, LeoObrst, PeterYim,"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google