Open Ontology Repository Session OORTeam Presentation Ontology Summit

  • Slides: 55
Download presentation
Open Ontology Repository Session OOR-Team Presentation Ontology Summit 2008 Interoperability Week, NIST Gaithersburg, MD

Open Ontology Repository Session OOR-Team Presentation Ontology Summit 2008 Interoperability Week, NIST Gaithersburg, MD Mike. Dean, Leo. Obrst, Peter. Yim April 29, 2008 v 0. 98 1

Agenda: Presenting the OOR Initiative 1) What is the OOR? Overview, rationale and motivations

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

Overview, Rationale & Motivations Leo Obrst 3

Overview, Rationale & Motivations Leo Obrst 3

Overview • Recognizing of the need for an Open Ontology Repository, the coconveners got

Overview • Recognizing of the need for an Open Ontology Repository, the coconveners got their act together: – 2001 DAML Ontology Library (Mike Dean) – 2005 MITRE Study on OWL/RDF Registry & Repository (Leo Obrst) – 2002/2005 CIM 3 -CWE / CODS initiative (Peter Yim) • 2008 -01 -03: Open Ontology Repository initiative - Planning Meeting – Proposed to have OOR as theme for Ontology Summit 2008 • 2008 -01 -23: 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 • 2008 -02 -07: OOR team adopts their “Ontology Repository” definition • 2008 -02 -28~04. 10: joined with the Ontology. Summit 2008 effort and coorganized four OOR-Panel Sessions: – Covering: “Technology Landscape, ” “Expectations & Requirements, ” and “Ontology of Ontologies” • OOR team virtual activities being hosted within the Ontolog collaborative 4 work environment, for the time being

The charter of the Open Ontology Repository (OOR) Initiative is to the promote the

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 / 2008. 02. 07 Homepage: http: //ontolog. cim 3. net/cgi-bin/wiki. pl? Open. Ontology. Repository 5

Rationale & Motivations (1) • Why are we interested in an OOR and what

Rationale & Motivations (1) • Why are we interested in an OOR and what purpose does it serve? • Isn’t 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. 6

Rationale & Motivations (2) • Value Added to the content by an Open Ontology

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. ” - http: //ontolog. cim 3. net/forum/oor-forum/2008 -01/msg 00016. html 7

Open Ontology Repository User Needs & Requirements Ken Baclawski 8

Open Ontology Repository User Needs & Requirements Ken Baclawski 8

“OOR” - what is in scope? • Repository: "An ontology repository is a facility

“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 9

OOR Users Needs (1) • Who are the users of an OOR – –

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, . . . ) 10

OOR Users Needs (2) Through the two virtual panel sessions and our online discourse,

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-Ontology. Summit 2008 Panel Discussion: "An Open Ontology Repository: Rationale, Expectations & Requirements - Session-1" - Chair: Leo. Obrst & Fabian. Neuhaus; Panelists: William. Bug, Evan. Wallace, John. LMc. Carthy, Ken. Baclawski, Peter. Benson & Rex. Brooks http: //ontolog. cim 3. net/cgi-bin/wiki. pl? Conference. Call_2008_03_27 • 2008_04_03 - Thursday: Joint OOR-Ontology. Summit 2008 Panel Discussion: "An Open Ontology Repository: Rationale, Expectations & Requirements - Session-2" - Chair: Leo. Obrst & Fabian. Neuhaus; Panelists: Doug. Lenat, Deke. Smith, Marcia. Zeng, Denise. Bedford, Pat. Hayes, Mala. Mehrotra & Rob. Raskin http: //ontolog. cim 3. net/cgi-bin/wiki. pl? Conference. Call_2008_04_03 11

OOR Users Needs (3) The top needs came out to: • that there is

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: http: //ontolog. cim 3. net/cgi-bin/wiki. pl? Conference. Call_2008_03_27#nid 1 CJJ and, for example, input from Andrew. Schain (NASA/HQ): http: //ontolog. cim 3. net/forum/ontology-summit/2008 -04/msg 00010. html 12

A sample of the input on Needs and Expectations … based on summary slides

A sample of the input on Needs and Expectations … based on summary slides received from some of the OOR-Panelists on the 2008. 03. 27 & 2008. 04. 03 “Requirements Panel” Sessions 13

Doug Lenat Cycorp Doug@cyc. com Content that Cycorp could provide to be be hosted:

Doug Lenat Cycorp [email protected] com Content that Cycorp could provide to be be hosted: * Open. Cyc (www. opencyc. org) 100% free even for commercial purposes * Research. Cyc (researchcyc. com) free for R&D purposes In both cases, there are ontologies plus inference engines and API-level and graphical interface tools What We’d 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 Meta-level message: Look at OKKAM, Lar. KC, etc. , and decide what role, if any, OOR can/should play, and how it should tie in with those other efforts. 14

What’s in Open. Cyc Doug Lenat Explicitly: 300 k terms; 14 k predicates; 57

What’s in Open. Cyc Doug Lenat Explicitly: 300 k terms; 14 k predicates; 57 k 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 • • • (#$isa 596215) (#$genls 99198) (#$disjoint. With 6114) (#$result. Isa 4277) (#$result. Genl 1206) (#$arg. Isa 35617 (#$arg. Genl 5398) (#$arg 1 Isa 16748) (#$arg 1 Genl 2354) (#$arg 2 Isa 14114 (#$arg 2 Genl 2283) (#$arg 3 Isa 3486) This means there are 596 k (#$arg. Format 5493) “isa” assertions in Open. Cyc (#$arg 2 Format 3320) (#$functional. In. Args 1427) (#$arity 16416) (#$arity. Min 958) (#$comment 57305) (#$genl. Preds 7440) in m t r e se at (#$negation. Inverse 990) en t syn e etw rd. Ne b (#$genl. Mt 26078) o g pin d a W p (#$denotation. In. English 409745). g. , mayc an E en. C Op (#$synonymous. External. Concept 13916) 15

Vision of the Future Peter Benson NATO codification system as the foundation for the

Vision of the Future Peter Benson NATO codification system as the foundation for the e. OTD, ISO 22745 and ISO 8000 “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 22745 -20/e. OTD) • an end to data mapping – Requirement specifications (ISO 22745 -30/e. OTD-ixml ) • an end to incomplete data – Data provenance (ISO 8000 -120) • an end to inaccurate information Faster data – Better data – Cheaper data 16

- Codification at Source Peter Benson Using standards to automate the data supply chain

- Codification at Source Peter Benson Using standards to automate the data supply chain Sub-Tier e. OTD-q-xml Sub (query) ISO 22745 -35 Data provider Data requestor Sub-Tier e. OTD-r-xml e. OTD-i-xml (data requirements statement) ISO 22745 -30 e. OTD-r-xml (data exchange) ISO 22745 -40 Faster data – Better data – Cheaper data 17

Rex Brooks: Content Provider-Repository Builder Focus on Architecture, Registry-Repository & Emergency Data Exchange Language

Rex Brooks: Content Provider-Repository Builder Focus on Architecture, Registry-Repository & Emergency Data Exchange Language Reference Information Model (EDXL-RIM) 18

Rex Brooks: Content Provider-Repository Builder Focus on Architecture, Registry-Repository & Emergency Data Exchange Language

Rex Brooks: Content Provider-Repository Builder Focus on Architecture, Registry-Repository & Emergency Data Exchange Language Reference Information Model (EDXL-RIM) 19

Developer Requirements - Ken Baclawski Must have the ability to browse and query small

Developer Requirements - 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. 20

End User Requirements - Ken Baclawski Must have – – Good to have –

End User Requirements - Ken Baclawski Must have – – Good to have – – Ability to efficiently navigate multiple hierarchies Consistency across multiple ontologies Ability to provide live feedback Allow annotating relationships or propose new terms Ideally, it can – Support scientific hypothesis testing 21

OOR needs for content /application providers Mala Mehrotra • Content developers: Discover related terms/axioms/models

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. month. Description in DAML time ontologies – Differences in competing models • Time. Interval in SUMO vs Duration. Description 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 22

Infrastructure Needs Mala Mehrotra • Cognitive Tools for discovery – Collaborating groups of concepts

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 23

Needs vs. Rationale • The “Needs and Expectations” map well to the “Rationale” cited

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 2008. 04. 03 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? 24

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

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

Translating Needs to Requirements • Active discussion on the matter evolved on the [oor-forum]

Translating Needs to Requirements • Active discussion on the matter evolved on the [oor-forum] list, initiated from threads like: – post from Evan. Wallace (NIST): http: //ontolog. cim 3. net/forum/oor-forum/2008 -04/msg 00011. html. . & – post from Todd. Schneider (Raytheon): http: //ontolog. cim 3. net/forum/oor-forum/2008 -04/msg 00012. html • 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 26

Requirements • Evan to possibly add next level of “system requirements” details here (culling

Requirements • Evan to possibly add next level of “system requirements” details here (culling from the list discussion) - optional 27

To Enable the Management and Services specified in the Requirements we need to capture

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 2008. 04. 10 Panel Session On “Ontology of Ontologies” 28

Objective Michael Gruninger • This is based on the communique from the 2007 Ontology

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. 29

Dimensions Michael Gruninger • We can identify a set of dimensions that can be

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 30

OMV - Ontology Metadata Vocabulary Peter Haase • OMV is … a metadata schema

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 http: //omv. ontoware. org/ 31

Applications of OMV Peter Haase • Numerous existing and planned applications of OMV –

Applications of OMV Peter Haase • Numerous existing and planned applications of OMV – Ontology Registries in Ne. On • 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! 32

Requirements vs. Rationale • Again, the “Requirements” map well to the “Rationale” cited in

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 33 membership, to get this off the ground

Existing Efforts … based on input from the 2008. 02. 28 OOR-Panel on “Ontology

Existing Efforts … based on input from the 2008. 02. 28 OOR-Panel on “Ontology Registry and Repository Technology & Infrastructure Landscape” Bruce Bargmeyer 34

e. Xtended Metadata Registry (XMDR) Bruce Bargmeyer What XMDR Brings to the Table: •

e. Xtended 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 11179 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: XMDR. org 35

Modular XMDR Archtitecture Bruce Bargmeyer USERS Web Browsers…. . Client Software Metadata Sources concept

Modular XMDR Archtitecture Bruce Bargmeyer USERS Web Browsers…. . Client Software Metadata Sources concept systems, data elements Content Loading & Transformation (Lexgrid & custom) Authentication Service XMDR data model & exchange format XML, RDF, OWL Mapping Engine Registry Store standard XMDR files XMDR metamodel (OWL & xml schema) Application Program Interface (REST) Human User Interface (HTML from. JSP and javascript; Exhibit) Validation (XML Schema) Metamodel specs (UML & Editing) (Poseidon, Protege) standard XMDR files Third Party Software Search & Content Serving (Jena, Lucene) Logic Indexer (Jana & Pellet) Logic Index Text Indexer (Lucene) Text Index 36 Postgres Database

DAML Ontology Library Mike Dean • Created early in the DARPA Agent Markup Language

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 Schema. Web • Available at http: //www. daml. org/ontologies/ – daml. org now archived at W 3 C 37

Lessons Learned Mike Dean • Curation/quality control – Many users desired some indication of

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 38

NCBO Bio. Portal Mark Musen • The National Center for Biomedical Ontology (http: //bioontology.

NCBO Bio. Portal Mark Musen • The National Center for Biomedical Ontology (http: //bioontology. org) is developing Bio. Portal, an open-source repository of ontologies, terminologies, and thesauri of importance in biomedicine. • An early version of Bio. Portal is accessible at http: //bioportal. bioontology. org. Users can access the Bio. Portal content interactively via Web browsers or programmatically via Web services. 39

Bio. Portal will offer Mark Musen • Ontology repository functionality • Linkages among different

Bio. Portal 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 40

OASIS eb. XML Reg. Rep Farrukh Najmi • A generic registry / repository standard

OASIS eb. XML Reg. Rep Farrukh Najmi • A generic registry / repository standard – eb. RIM = meta infomodel, eb. RS = services and protocols – Approved as OASIS and ISO standards – Version 4 of Reg. Rep expected in 2008 – Highly extensible • Not specifically an Ontology repository, but can be made so – eb. XML Reg. Rep 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) • freeb. XML Registry provides a royalty-free open source implementation 41 • Is more a toolkit than an out-of-box solution

eb. XML Reg. Rep as an OOR Server: A Proposal - Farrukh Najmi •

eb. XML Reg. Rep as an OOR Server: A Proposal - Farrukh Najmi • • Build upon Reg. Rep 4. 0 impl from Wellfleet Software Implement OWL-Lite Profile (modulo Reg. Rep 4) Reg. Rep does not provide Ontology specific UI, use Protege Integrate Reg. Rep 4. 0 with Protege such that – Reg. Rep serves as backend for Multi-user Protege client – Protege reasoning engine serves as Reasoning plugin for Reg. Rep • Initially deploy a single Root OOR instance with pilot users playing various roles in the collaborative ontology management use cases – Use Open. ID as distributed identity management solution • Later facilitate deployment of Community-specific OORs (e. g. Medical, GIS, Defense. . . ) 42

What Does CIM 3 Do? Peter Yim • Mission: to enable more effective distributed

What Does CIM 3 Do? Peter Yim • Mission: to enable more effective distributed collaboration and virtual enterprise through bootstrapping collective intelligence over the Internet • Doing business as: “cim 3. com”, “cim 3. net” and “cim 3. org” cim 3. com – the business arm of the company cim 3. net – the collaborative work environments where client Communities of Practice and distributed team workspaces are hosted cim 3. org – the research arm, and holder of the company’s 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 43 effectively over the Internet.

CIM 3's potential role in OOR - Peter. Yim • provide the “plumbing” (the

CIM 3's potential role in OOR - Peter. Yim • provide the “plumbing” (the bottom layer of the technology stack) - a robust hosted (hardware and network) infrastructure for OOR – Network Facility: • Tier-1 IPv 4 Internet hosting facility (IPv 6 ready) • 100 Mbps bandwidth into the Internet backbone (upgradable to 1 Gbps in short order) • Backbone: multiple OC 192 & 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 1 u 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 44 and management

Open Ontology Repository Roadmap Mike Dean 45

Open Ontology Repository Roadmap Mike Dean 45

OOR Is … • An open source software platform • 1 or more public

OOR Is … • An open source software platform • 1 or more public instantiations of that platform • A sustainable organization • (Lots of potential parallelism here) 46

Apache-like Software Platform • Architectural framework (internal APIs, core representation standards, processing pipeline) •

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 – … 47

OOR Federation • Other OOR instances – P 2 P (ish) – Easiest case

OOR Federation • Other OOR instances – P 2 P (ish) – Easiest case - we have full control • Collaborative ontology editing environments (knoodl, Semantic Media. Wiki, Bio. Portal, CODS, etc. ) – Want to cooperate rather than compete • Other registries/repositories • “Loose” ontologies posted on the WWW – Add metadata and apply services 48

“Open” • OOR platform software should be open source (like Apache) – Probably use

“Open” • OOR platform software should be open source (like Apache) – Probably use one of the licenses from opensource. org • 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. Research. Cyc) and services • OOR organization should do whatever it can to promote the adoption of ontologies and related technologies that benefit the community 49

Public Services • At least one “central” instantiation – Showcase for the technology •

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 – <OOR. org> is already taken; Mike Dean has registered Open. Ontology. Repository. org & Open. Ontology. Repository. net – Peter Yim has volunteered supporting infrastructure, initially 50

OOR Organization Support • Volunteers (now) • Funded OOR proposals (hopefully soon) • Collaborative

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, W 3 C, OMG, …) • Should adopt a W 3 C-like persistence policy for software and content 51

Linking Open Data • Ontologies as (meta) data – Adopt their conventions • Nice

Linking Open Data • Ontologies as (meta) data – Adopt their conventions • Nice visual depiction of increasing interconnections • A community linked by best practices and a cool logo 52

Strawman Phase 1 • 6 month time horizon • Basic registry and repository –

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 53

Going Forward • oor-forum@ontolog. cim 3. net email list – http: //ontolog. cim 3.

Going Forward • [email protected] cim 3. net email list – http: //ontolog. cim 3. net/forum/oor-forum/ archives • Next OOR telecon – Friday, May 9, noon EDT • Calling for: – Collaborators / contributors – Developers – “A cool logo!” 54

Open Discussion Q&A 55

Open Discussion Q&A 55