OOR: Vision vs. Current State
-
Upload
jared-mason -
Category
Documents
-
view
27 -
download
6
description
Transcript of OOR: Vision vs. Current State
OOR: Vision vs. Current State
Mike [email protected]
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
3
OOR Is …
• An open source software platform• 1 or more public instantiations of that
platform• A sustainable organization• (Lots of potential parallelism here)
• We’ve largely accomplished these• Sustainability remains an issue– Alignment with BioPortal and submitted proposals
helps in the short- to mid-term– User support will hopefully help beyond that
4
5
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– …
• 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 BioPortal 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