ppy/chat-transcript_20100916b_edited.txt // PeterYim: . Welcome to the Joint OOR-Ontolog-NCBO-CC-IAOA-OASIS "OpenOntologyRepository_IPR Policy and Issues" Panel Discussion (session-2) - Thu 16-Sep-2010 * Topic: "OOR-IPR session 2: what are the IPR issues relating to open ontology repositories (and ontologies in general)?" * Chair: Professor MarkMusen (NCBO; Stanford) * Panelists: (2HFZ) o Mr. CameronRoss (Kojeware; OOR) - "Ecosystems, Ontology Repositories, and IPR" o Professor AlanRector (University of Manchester) - Remarks: "The GALEN and SNOMED IPR experience" o Dr. JohnSowa (Vivomind Intelligence; SIO) - Remarks: "Issues with Patents" o Mr. BrucePerens (original author of the "Open Source Definition") - Commentary o Mr. JohnWilbanks (VP of Science, Creative Commons) - Commentary o Mr. PeterYim (Co-convener, Ontolog & OOR; Secretary, IAOA) - "Questions to ALL: what are our issues now?" see details on session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2010_09_16 . anonymous morphed into TerryLongstreth JohnWilbanks: PeterYim, I am on the line but muted JohnWilbanks: in a noisy environment PeterYim: Hi John anonymous morphed into AlanRector AliHashemi: Hello all! YuriyMilov: Hi All JohnWilbanks: PeterYim, can you speak up or increase your mic volume? RaviSharma: @Cameron: why should OOR Support proprietary extensions? as mentioned in your slide. CameronRoss: @RaviSharma - Proprietary extension allow commercial entities to utilize the OOR. BrucePerens: BrucePerens is on the line. PeterYim: great ... Hi Bruce RaviSharma: @Cameron: i view the OOR as a container, kindly compare the keystone unix Kernel with technologies involved in creating and supporting OOR lifecycle, I also envisage OOR lifecycle to have ecosystem like evolution where some technologies and ontologies will not be able to survive? CameronRoss: @RaviSharma - OOR being a compilation of the OOR content, the software used to implement the OOR and the federation of specific OOR instances. The tools for creating and supporting the OOR life-cycle help to define the content... the keystone would result from the uses of this content. Imagine that the OOR grows in terms of content and we have all kinds of applications that build on top of it (define applications in a very general sense here). Now, take away the OOR... ouch! RaviSharma: @Cameron: excellent ELP AlanRector: One moment please - moving the microphone nearer I got cut off AliHashemi: Are there slides online? PeterYim: @Ali - no slides for Alan's remarks JohnWilbanks: this point is essential - the need to clarify and edit ontologies, not just refer to them JohnWilbanks: here's an old example from 2007 - http://neurocommons.org/page/2007_prototype_queries#Creating_class_level_relations_for_easier_querying_of_the_GO. JohnWilbanks: or here: http://neurocommons.org/page/Bundles/obo/all JohnWilbanks: "The part_of relation in all OBO ontologies (and elsewhere in the RDF distribution) is normalized to http://purl.org/obo/owl/OBO_REL#part_of before being included in the Neurocommons RDF distribution." CameronRoss: @Alan - Contributions to Eclipse are also "viral" in the sense that you must contribute to the project under the Eclipse Public License. The primary difference, I believe, is that the EPL is open whereas the contribution to SNOMED is not. FrankOlken: Hi BrucePerens: I would like to speak about challenging the patent. RaviSharma: @Dr. John Sowa - for obvious reasons given by you - Can such a patent be made to be rescinded or there is too much process involved? RaviSharma: @Bruce and John: can we request patent office to open their process in this particular case to determine if SMEs who understand Text Processing, Ontology, concepts were consulted or can now be inducted to review? JohnWilbanks: +1 for public patent foundation FrankOlken: Public Patent Foundation web site: http://www.pubpat.org/ PeterYim: @Bruce - would you please type out the name and contact for Dan R so we can be sure we got his name right, please JohnWilbanks: http://www.pubpat.org/ BrucePerens1: Daniel Ravisher at pubpat.org FrankOlken: PUBPAT Board of Directors - Daniel B. Ravicher, President and Executive Director JohnWilbanks: email is dan at pubpat dot org JohnSowa: I suggest that Peter starts a wiki page (each) to collect prior art that is pertinent to the two example problematic patent/patent-application PeterYim: will do ... thank you for the suggestion, John PeterYim: @JohnSowa and All - I have initialized the wiki pages (to collect prior art for your two artifacts) ... see under: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2010_09_16#nid2HIH RaviSharma: @All- can we also sign a petition from community for patent office. RaviSharma: @ALL- I would like to know opinion in this group whether Ontology as a concept should not be communicated by us to be non-patentable as it is based on reasoning - (foundation of free thinking and use of intellect), common knowledge from centuries, and connectedness to knowledge some prior and some current that is inherently difficult to parse and separate. JohnWilbanks: http://www.patent-commons.org/ RaviSharma: @JohnWilbanks - on the referred site above there is no entry for other-patents search for Ontology? CameronRoss: So I guess ignorance is bliss! CameronRoss: @JohnWilbanks - Could you elaborate a bit on ontology interoperability v.s. openness? CameronRoss: @JohnWilbanks - Got it. Thanks. RaviSharma: IS the question valid - whether ontologies are paptentable? CameronRoss: @BrucesPerens - What are your thoughts on the EPL 1.0? CameronRoss: EPL = Eclipse Public Lincese JohnWilbanks: there is also the issue of US *public funding* for vast amounts of ontology work... BrucePerens: Freedom of thinking went out with the recent court decision in Vernor v. Autodesk. The publisher can now license the WAY you use the information, as Sun has tried to do for a decade with the Java reference books. JohnWilbanks: CameronRoss: not funded = not sustainable PeterYim: refer to PeterYim's slides #5 to #12 on "Questions to All participants" PeterYim: '''#6: Are you planning to contribute to the OOR effort; if yes, what would your contribution(s) be?''' JohnWilbanks: CC is on board JohnWilbanks: we can bring our own research to the table AliHashemi: 1) Yes (mainly COLORE). 2) Software/services(?)[requires other resources to be better developed] - more so things that work with ontologies than ontologies themselves CameronRoss: Maybe, contributing mostly code and infrastructure, but the degree of my contribution will be dictated by the level of commitment of others and also on the licensing model(s) that is eventually adopted. PeterYim: '''#7: If you are contributing code, what would be your (top 2 or 3) open license preferences?''' BrucePerens: Bruce says GPL, BSD, LGPL together provide all the common sorts of Open Source license and are compatible with each other. RaviSharma: @All - since there is no kernel agreed for ontologies or for OOR, unix parallels may not be directly applicable? CameronRoss: License preferences: in order of preferences for OOR code: #1: EPL, #2: BSD, #3 some other gifting license. Not acceptable from my perspective would be GPL. RaviSharma: general open license PeterYim: @Ravi - not sure what license you are referring to in the above statement. PeterYim: '''#8: If you are contributing content, what would be your (top 2 or 3) open license preferences?''' CameronRoss: Content license preference at this point would be CC-by 3.0, but this isn't all that clear to me at this point. BrucePerens: BSD, or just declare it to be in the public domain if you don't care about attribution. Pat Cassidy1: For ontology content, I suggest that the freest possible license be used; if not public domain, then a gift license with at most an attribution requirement. If control of the name of an ontology is desirable, I would suggest that the name be trademarked. PeterYim: '''#9; If you are planning to run an ontology repository ...''' Will you federate with the open instance of the OOR? ... What kind of software license do you plan to adopt? ... What kind of content license do you plan to adopt? CameronRoss: Yes! Absolutely! As long as the OOR interfaces were reasonable to interface with. Current plan is to use EPL 1.0 for software and CC-by 3.0. PeterYim: '''#10: Should we, as a community, take a position on Software patents? if so, what position should we take?''' RaviSharma: consensus communique BrucePerens: Unfortunately software patenting is potentially a show-stopper for Open Source, so you need to do something about it. The W3C process is probably good. PeterYim: '''#11: Should we, as a community, take a position on Ontology patents? if so, what position should we take?''' RaviSharma: Peter your Q lists what i wanted to communicate anyway. Thanks. RaviSharma: Can we attempt a communique style brief as consensus of community in the next 2-3 wks? RaviSharma: Ontologies should not be patentable, but some effort attribution ought to be allowed. CameronRoss: I don't think that ontologies should be patentable, but I see the whole patent situation to be entirely misguided. CameronRoss: I guess we should take a position, but I wouldn't dedicate a lot of resources to it... its seems like a black hole... I think that our resources would be better spent just doing real work. PeterYim: '''#12: Any suggestion on how we can get open efforts funded ... ?''' BrucePerens: Write grants? AliHashemi: Re funding: case studies demonstrating real $ savings for companies? AliHashemi: i.e. form a committee or a group via ontolog to demonstrate a business case for open efforts in ontologies? AliHashemi: (dunno if this is pie in the sky...) AliHashemi: case can/should also be made to government organizations. Electronic health records, etc... The case just needs to be documented and made. BrucePerens: Someone's going to have to tilt at this windmill some day. RaviSharma: Peter: Will some of the answers in chat find their way on the active pages? PeterYim: @Ravi - the chat transcript will be captured onto the session page shortly (as usual) RaviSharma: Thanks. BrucePerens: Bye. CameronRoss: Thanks everyone. PeterYim: thanks PeterYim: -- session ended 12:27pm PDT -- //