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 1

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

3. 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. Weve 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. 5 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 – …

6. I think selection of different modules is still viable – Perhaps using different mechanisms, e.g. Enterprise Service Bus vs. Java interfaces Michael Gruningers 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

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 7