Also https://semtools.ecoinformatics.org/owlifier which lets you use spreadsheets to develop ontologies. (That link, though, presently conforms to the Rich Pyle rule for the TDWG Ontologies: it's, umm, minimalistic.)
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Bob Morris morris.bob@gmail.com wrote:
Nobody disputes this, and your vision for #3 is beginning to emerge (see, for example, http://neurocommons.org/page/Ontological_term_broker and the drag-and-drop visual OWL ontology editor http://www.ihmc.us/groups/coe/ written on top of CMap. ). People are also working on the integrated ontology life-cycle management systems you require. I think those will be here in 3-5 years, which is just about the time needed to develop a good biodiversity ontology using a community of volunteers. Now if you could find us some Pharma to fund it, maybe 2 years. :-)
Bob
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Lee Belbin leebelbin@gmail.com wrote:
Well stated Stan, but I'd add a third-
- Effective tool/s for viewing (graph, sub-graph, tables, properties etc.),
add/delete/modify with adaptable governance control (e.g., assigned management to sub-graph domains), annotate (with full logging of who did what, when and how...). This is in effect a collaboration tool.
Until we have a tool (preferable to tools) that can be intuitive and effective for building, managing and deploying /exporting vocabs or ontologies, we will struggle with this socially and technically tough, but very necessary task. The social issues are the hardest, but an effective collaboration tool would be a big help.
A tool that will be readily embraced by #2 (the domain specialists) seems far more important than the tools I've seen so far that are embraced by #1 (e.g. Protégé).
That we don't have a TDWG ontology is an increasing worry.
Lee
Lee Belbin Geospatial Team Leader Atlas of Living Australia
-----Original Message----- From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Blum, Stan Sent: Saturday, 13 November 2010 9:43 AM To: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Relation of GNA to TDWG vocabularies
Progress on the TDWG ontology seems to require:
- one or more people with good sense of what can be done with ontologies, both
in the near-term and long-term; and 2) one or more people who understand the way information is partitioned in this domain and how it could fit together.
I think we have a lot of #2, but not many of #1.
FYI, we have seed money to bring these categories together.
-Stan
On 11/12/10 2:25 PM, "Bob Morris" morris.bob@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Richard Pyle deepreef@bishopmuseum.org wrote:
[...] the current status of the TDWG-Ontology efforts. The Google Code website seems a bit anemic,
Ooh, I love that line. I think I'll put it in the script of my next animation, to be titled: "Alpha and Beta discuss the current status of of the TDWG-Ontology efforts"
Thanks for correcting the URL.
Bob
Robert A. Morris Emeritus Professor of Computer Science UMASS-Boston 100 Morrissey Blvd Boston, MA 02125-3390 Associate, Harvard University Herbaria email: morris.bob@gmail.com web: http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/ web: http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram phone (+1) 857 222 7992 (mobile) _______________________________________________ tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
-- Robert A. Morris Emeritus Professor of Computer Science UMASS-Boston 100 Morrissey Blvd Boston, MA 02125-3390 Associate, Harvard University Herbaria email: morris.bob@gmail.com web: http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/ web: http://etaxonomy.org/mw/FilteredPush http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram phone (+1) 857 222 7992 (mobile)