1 / 7

OOR: Vision vs. Current State

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. Slides from the Ontology Summit 2008 Roadmap. Interleaved with some reflections. OOR Is …. An open source software platform

jared-mason
Download Presentation

OOR: Vision vs. Current State

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

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

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

  4. 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

  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 • …

  6. 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

  7. 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

More Related