From: Alan R. <ala...@gm...> - 2010-05-14 00:24:04
|
On Thursday, May 13, 2010, Nicolas Le Novere wrote: > Hi Alan, > > I can imagine several reasons. I would classify them in two sets. > > 1) I want to use ontologies. For instance, I want to build an > infrastructure which relies on ontologies. It is a production tools, that > is supposed to be robust and perennial. I cannot rely on proof of concept > ontologies that will never be improved or maintained. OBO foundry is a > label of quality. The ontologies under review, although possibly not > fulfilling adequately the OBO guidelines, are supposed to be considered > sufficiently interesting for the community and sufficiently mature to be > considered for inclusion. This is a sort of flag. The problem is that this isn't the case. Only the ontologies that have passed reviews are the ones that we want to flag in this way. Compare to a journal. PLOS doesn't post the manuscripts that have been submitted for review, only the ones that have passed review. > > 2) I want to develop an ontology > And I want to make sure there isn't another that would be better suited. > In that case I would rather contribute to the existing one. The ontologies > under review are considered orthogonal, and the most mature on their > specific ground. This info is important. But this is incorrect as well. Not being orthogonal may in fact the reason that the ontology has not passed review yet. I think this forum is a good place for people to discuss coordination of ontology development - you can ask here about ontologies and about the intention of developers, or advertise your own intentions here and elsewhere. However, looking at the analogy to publishers, I don't see why the foundry should suggest any status to ontologies other than the ones that it already does - either that it has passed review, or that it is open and available for sharing. Now, understand that I am sharing my own view at this point, and so this doesn't necessarily represent the position of the coordinators as a whole. I'm certainly interested in hearing counterpoint to these thoughts. -Alan > Best regards, > >> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Stefan Schulz >> wrote: >> >>> As we are currently performing a review of OBO ontologies and OBO >>> Foundry candidates regarding formal-ontological principles, it would >>> be very useful to know which of the ontologies under 2.) are actually >>> running for being included into the OBO foundry. >>> >> >> Hello Stefan, >> >> Why would it be useful to know this? >> >> -Alan >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Obo-discuss mailing list >> Obo...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/obo-discuss >> > > > -- > Nicolas LE NOVERE, Computational Neurobiology, > EMBL-EBI, Wellcome-Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SD, UK > Tel: +44(0)1223494521, Fax: +44(0)1223494468, Mob: +44(0)7833147074 > http://www.ebi.ac.uk/~lenov, AIM:nlenovere, MSN:nle...@ho... > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Obo-discuss mailing list > Obo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/obo-discuss > |