Excerpts from Nina Jeliazkova's message of Tue Oct 13 12:08:44 +0200 2009:
> >
> > Well, yes, but that's the goal of creating/using an ontology, isn't it.
> >   
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> I agree with simplification of the URIs, few questions follow.
> 
> - If we have the so-called Algorithm Ontology service completely
> independent of the Algorithm service, how does Algorithm Ontology
> service knows which Algorithms are available ?

It could register a new algorithm, eg. with

PUT /algorithm-ontology/{class}/{subclass} algorithm_uri

> - An ontology implies that we have defined classes (e.g. algorithm
> types) and individuals (specific algorithm instances).  An algorithm
> type will be an ontology entry (of type class). An algorithm will be
> again an ontology entry, but of type "individual".  Thus, what is the
> purpose  of  splitting  classes and instances in different resources /
> services ? 

I think the main benefits are

- simplified algorithm_uris
- stable algorithm_uris, even if the algorithm ontology is modified
	(I suspect that we will need a lot of reclassificiations/modifications/additions of algorithms in the near future and we do not want to modify the algorithm API/URIs every time we modify the ontology)

Best regards,
Christoph