1. Leo Obrst, Fabian Neuhaus MITRE, NIST lobrst@mitre.org, fneuhaus@cme.nist.gov An Open Ontology Repository: Rationale, Expectations & Requirements Session 2 Joint OOR-Ontology Summit 2008 Panel Discussion April 3, 2008 V. 1.10

2. 2 Agenda Information: –Today’s call (April 3, 2008), continuing from last week: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2008_04_03 Continuing from http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2008_03_27 –Ontology Summit mail list: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/ Look ahead: –Ontology Summit 2008, April 29-30, 2008, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD, USA: Main site: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008 NIST Registration site: http://www.mel.nist.gov/div826/msid/sima/interopweek/meetings.htm Agenda: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi- bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008/FaceToFaceAgenda –Next week (April 10, 2008): Developing an Ontology of Ontologies (for OOR): http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2008_04_10 Today: –Focus is on potential content providers for such an OOR –Rationale –Expectations –Requirements

3. 3 Rationale 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, they will come? –If you build it better and put it out there, they will prefer yours? –History does not show this laissez faire “field of dreams” is good reality So real rationale: –You can find it simply –It’s registered, so you know who built it –It’s got metadata, so you know the purpose, KR language, user group, etc. –It’s got metadata, so you know what the content subject area is –It’s got mappings, so you can connect it to other ontologies –It’s got quality and value, as gauged by recognized criteria –It’s got services, so that you can map and be mapped, can find and be found, can review/certify and be reviewed/certify, can hook your own services into and can use the services others have hooked in –It’s linked to multiple common middle and upper ontologies –It can be easily extended

4. 4 Expectations Will the OOR solve everything? How will we stage our wants and needs? Can we provide good service to end users, content providers, application developers? In particular today, what do content providers expect to find and use? What do content providers expect to be able to provide?

5. 5 Requirements What’s needed: today, tomorrow, next week? What do end users need? What do content providers need? What do application developers need? Architecture Ontology of Ontologies Quality and Gateway Criteria State of the Art OOR the reality: –Requirements -> Design -> Implementation -> Long-term Maintenance & Enhancement –A Technical Roadmap and Realization –How do we ensure long term value, quality, commitment, progress? Towards the Ontology Summit 2008 Communique

6. 6 Panelists Dr. Doug Lenat, Cycorp –"Is OpenCyc doomed to be the new Esperanto, or is OOR doomed to be the new Electronic Data Interchange, or -- even worse -- both!" Mr. Deke Smith, National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) –"National Building Information Modeling Standard" Dr. Marcia Zeng, Kent State University –"Issues in reusing and sharing the content of thesauri and taxonomies in OOR" Dr. Denise Bedford, World Bank, Georgetown University, … –"Practical Requirements for Every Day Ontology Management and Use" Dr. Pat Hayes, Florida Institute for Human & Machine Cognition (IHMC) –"Describing Concept Relationships - A brief guide to the expressive powers of ISO Common Logic" Ms. Mala Mehrotra, Pragati Synergetic Research –"Exposing and Capturing Mapping Relationships across OOR resources" Dr. Robert Raskin, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA –"SWEET 2.0 Ontology"