OOR Vision vs Current State Mike Dean mdeanbbn

OOR: Vision vs. Current State Mike Dean mdean@bbn. com Joint Ontolog-OOR Panel on OOR Sandbox and OOR Requirements - Comparative Analysis 15 October 2009 1

Slides from the Ontology Summit 2008 Roadmap Interleaved with some reflections 2

OOR Is … • An open source software platform • 1 or more public instantiations of that platform • A sustainable organization • (Lots of potential parallelism here) 3

• We’ve largely accomplished these • Sustainability remains an issue – Alignment with Bio. Portal and submitted proposals helps in the short- to mid-term – User support will hopefully help beyond that 4

Apache-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 – … 5

• I think selection of different modules is still viable – Perhaps using different mechanisms, e. g. Enterprise Service Bus vs. Java interfaces • Michael Gruninger’s CL work is a great example of multiple language support • Availability of the Bio. Portal installation instructions is also helpful • We should try to reengage with the XMDR folks, perhaps as an example of federation 6

Bottom Line • The current OOR state is consistent with the vision from Ontology Summit 2008 – But differs a bit in the implementation details • It also seems to be consistent with the Ontology Summit 2008 Communique 7