Namespace for Open Transport Ontology

[carstenhoyerklick]

Background

The OTO is currently part of the Open Energy Family at Github to use the integration of the Open Energy Family. But it might also be misleading to find the OTO as a subactivity of an Energy activity or it might make the OTO less findable, as it is a different energy context.

This is issue should discuss some pros and cons of the the integration into the Open Energy Family

Pro Open Energy Family

• The OTO is derived from the OEO, we can use the Github Infrastructure of the Open Energy Family
• Question: Do we loose any useful functionality, if we move the OTO out of the OE Family?
• The OTO will be part of the Open Energy Ontology Foundry, it therefore makes sense to have it in the context of the Foundry.

Con Open Energy Family

• The OTO is about Transport and not about Energy
• The OTO could have more of its own visibility and branding.

[SirkoS]

Regarding infrastructure of the OEF: As tools and repos are public anyway, I do not see any issues in re-using stuff (pending licensing of course). But to be sure, the OEF should be asked about that.

Even if the OTO gets its own namespace, nothing prevents us from collaborating on joint tooling etc under the umbrella of the OEF.

Pro Open Energy Family

• Benefit from the general housekeeping in the OEF (account/group management etc)
• Emphasize the link and keep strong ties to the OEF

Con Open Energy Family

• would have a separate access management (not everyone in the OTO needs the same level of access to the OEO).
• publishing a page via Github pages would yield in URLs like https://openenergyplatform.github.io/OpenTransportOntology/ which might be confusing. Using a unique namespace, gives us the option to have something like https://OpenTransportFamily.github.io
• potential name clashes. currently the is an ontology repo within the OEF which is why the OTO resides in OpenTransportOntology.