OOR: Vision vs. Current State

OOR: Vision vs. Current State

Mike Deanmdean@bbn.com

Joint Ontolog-OOR Panel on OOR Sandbox and OOR Requirements - Comparative Analysis

15 October 2009

1

Slides from the Ontology Summit 2008 Roadmap

Interleaved with some reflections

2

3

OOR Is …

• An open source software platform• 1 or more public instantiations of that

platform• A sustainable organization• (Lots of potential parallelism here)

• 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

4

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– …

• 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

6

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