Sunday, October 09, 2005

Towards a P2P(?) PSI registry

Yes, I advocated a PSI registry in the first open space session of TMRA05.

Lars Marius Garshol had blogged on this:
"Alexander Sigel held a passionate talk about the need for a PSI registry, and really wanted people to help him out. There was vigourous discussion on the subject, and general agreement that this was needed, without anyone really stepping up to pay for it. The subject was eventually deferred to the evening social session."

I do not intend to do this myself, but I want to see this happen.

A server from Hetzner starts from 39 EUR/month.
Maybe we could use some PSI work from Morpheus?

I agree with Jack Park that not all subjects have stable notions ("are in a flux"), and that a sophisticated PSI registry concept would have to deal with this. Upper categories are more stable, and the notions are stable at the time of describing the PSI. How can we include the (knowledge organizational) characteristics of a concept from its definition in the PSI? How are they related to topic characteristics in establishing identity?

Maybe we could have the domain registered on the Norwegian Topic Map association?
(Sorry, last night I had mistyped here. Of course this should be RDF-friendly!)

Here is my slide:

> Motivation
* Better semantic interoperability with PSI identity. Merging. SLUO (collocation objective)
* Reuse. Best Practice. Distributed Knowledge Management (DKM). Federated Seamless Knowledge
* Infrastructure for emerging collaborative distributed lightweight ontology engineering
* No long-term, public registry („PSIpedia“) existing. Wikipedia not the full solution for PSIs!
* No working group on this, not much progress seen since the inception of XTM
> Some Use Cases
* Has someone published a PSI for the topic I want to make an assertion about?
* Has someone published a set of PSIs for the type of topic I want to make an assertion about?
* (How) could I reuse an existing, even 3rd party Knowledge Organization Schema (upconvert, proxify)
* How to handle: deletion? Update/newer versions?
* Assess not only identity, but thesaurus-like relations
* Provide a pointer to a information or service offer (like a sample chapter of a book)
> Architectural and Technical Issues
* How to avoid the „arbitrary proliferation of PSI entries, or even PSI registries“?
* P2P or central? TMRAP?
* Replication?
* TM engine backend? Querying? Search engine?
> Implementation and Organization
* Sourceforge project? Language? Hosting of the application? Responsibility?
> Cooperation with content owners
* Creative Commons Licencing vs. What‘s the incentive for publishers/content producers?
> Trust Networks
* Scope? Values? like in P2P Trust Networks?
> Who is interested in what? Who will contribute what?

Addition 2005-11-28:
Today, Michael Chapman has hinted me to his PSI registry:


Anonymous Lars Heuer said...

While I like the idea of a PSI registry, I don't think that it is a good idea to use a Topic Map specific domain name. It should be neutral, so we may integrate PSIs from the RDF community as well.
And the RDF community may not be very eager to use a TM specific domain... .

5:14 AM  
Blogger Alexander Sigel said...

thx lars, corrected my typo to

6:37 AM  
Anonymous Lars Marius Garshol said...

I think the first step here must be to remove some of the questions, and then to try again. :) Lots of the more difficult questions on your slide were settled in the discussions at TMRA'05, and I think getting traction on this is much easier without those. Could you do up a new version, Alex?

9:13 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home