Re: New major release of the NeOn Toolkit (v2.3)

Well, it looks like we don't get a prompt answer. Mathieu in case you
work on the neon project could you please fix the link for Deliverable
D9.1.1: Initial market assessment & market intelligence for NeOn here:

http://www.neon-project.org/nw/Deliverables

Marco

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Mathieu D'Aquin <m.daquin@open.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hi Alexander,
>
> Just a quick answer to two of your questions (I am sure somebody else will
> promptly answer the others and Marco's).
>
>> Taking the risk of being annoying I'd also ask, how is NeON's
>> Modularization approach different from previously proposed ones?
>
> That certainly depends on which previously proposed approaches you are
> referring to, but the major difference in my opinion is that the tools for
> modularization in the NeOn toolkit don't focus on one specific
> modularization task (module extraction, partitioning, composition), or on
> one specific, pre-defined set of modularization criteria, but offer a
> variety of relatively simple "operators" to build custom made
> modularizations of ontologies.
>
> Of course, this is just the quick answer. You can have a look at [1], [2]
> and of course the NeOn deliverable D1.1.4 [3] if you are interested in this
> particular aspect (and of course, I am always open to discussions on this
> topic).
>
>> Also,
>> regarding Watson, how is Watson an alternative to bioportal.
>
> Oh, that's an easy one: it is not.
>
>> From
>> whAt  I have seen Watson does not offer everything bioportal does.
>
> Of course, they are completely different systems. Bioportal is an ontology
> repository and Watson is an ontology search engine. Watson automatically
> crawls the Web to find ontologies to index, Bioportal relies on a community
> of users to submit ontologies (currently in the biomedical domain, but I
> understand that the technology is generic).
>
> But maybe you are referring to Cupboard, which is an ontology repository
> based on the Watson engine (as well as on an alignment server, an ontology
> metadata registry and an ontology reviewing mechanism). Making a complete
> list of the differences between these two systems goes well beyond what can
> be done in a single e-mail. It is important to notice however that we are
> certainly not trying to enter a competition here. Each system has its own
> strengths, and I don't believe that thinking in terms of one being an
> alternative to the other is the right approach. As far as I am concerned,
> collaboration and interoperability between systems like Bioportal and
> Cupboard is one of the reasons for a workshop like ORES [4] and for a number
> of other initiatives to exist.
>
> Best,
> Mathieu.
>
> [1] d'Aquin, M., Schlicht, A., Stuckenschmidt, H., Sabou, M., (2009)
> Criteria and Evaluation for Ontology Modularization Technique. In Heiner
> Stuckenschmidt, Christine Parent, Stefano Spaccapietra (ed) Modular
> Ontologies: Concepts, Theories and Techniques for Knowledge Modularization,
> Criteria and Evaluation for Ontology Modularization Technique.
> [2] d'Aquin, M., Doran, P., Motta, E., Tamma, V., (2007)Towards a Parametric
> Ontology Modularization Framework Based on Graph Transformation. Workshop:
> International Workshop on Modular Ontologies, K-CAP 2007.
> [3]
> http://www.neon-project.org/web-content/images/Publications/neon_2008_d114.pdf
> [4] http://www.ontologydynamics.org/od/index.php/ores2010/
>
>
>
>
> The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt
> charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).
>
>



-- 
Meet us at the Semantic Technology Conference this year in San Francisco.
http://www.lotico.com/stc2010

Received on Friday, 26 February 2010 21:27:44 UTC