SW OPortal Discussion

Ontology Portal Evaluation Approach

This page supports ESIP's evaluation of semantic repository solutions. It considers both comparative evaluations of different technology approaches, and a business cost justification model that could be used to justify funding semantic web repositories. All ESIP members (and anyone else with an account on this wiki) are welcome to contribute.

Comparing Semantic Repository Implementations

In general in this document:

• 'ontology' refers to any semantic artifact, whether expressed in OWL/RDF, another OWL representation, or a simpler form like Excel or CSV that can be converted into a semantic artifact.
• URI is used to mean a unique web identifier, aka IRI; it usually but not always is a URL.

Features/Services

These are the functions offered by the repository.

Search capabilities

How detailed are the search options in the UI? Are faceted searches available?

Protocols

Protocols describe how the repository makes its information, submissions, and entries available: what syntax, semantics, and specifications are supported in the data and commands that go into the system, and come out of it?

Ontology upload formats

==== URI format for concepts and artifacts

API support

How many/which features are available to other applications via API calls? Are these calls REST-based?

How is the URI for each concept in the repository represented? How is the URI for each artifact represented? Are the offered URIs versioned, unversioned, or both?

Authentication and Security

What types of login features are supported?

Support for Teams and Roles

Can teams be defined of multiple members? Can multiple members of a team edit the same ontology?

Cost

Costs are given in labor hours and funds required to start and operate the service.

Justifying Semantic Web Repository Business Costs

(see the [SW OPortal Discussion:Talk|Discussion] page for ideas.)