SOAPHUB-session-log_ontolog_20060420.txt = SOAPHUB.ORG - ontolog_20060420 = http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/ontolog_20060420 [9:38] anonymous joined [9:38] anonymous morphed into ArturoSanchez [10:19] PeterYim joined [10:19] PeterYim Hi Arturo [10:26] JakubKotowski joined [10:32] anonymous joined [10:33] KurtConrad joined [10:33] anonymous1 joined [10:33] anonymous1 left [10:33] anonymous1 joined [10:33] KurtConrad left [10:33] anonymous2 joined [10:34] anonymous2 left [10:34] anonymous2 joined [10:34] anonymous2 left [10:34] anonymous2 joined [10:34] anonymous left [10:35] anonymous2 morphed into KurtConrad [10:35] anonymous1 morphed into DeniseBedford [10:37] anonymous joined [10:37] anonymous morphed into RexBrooks [10:42] ArturoSanchez left [10:42] ArturoSanchez joined [10:47] ArturoSanchez I'll have my scotch straight up [10:58] ArturoSanchez Comment: the Wiki already has a search facility that uses Google. Therefore, a goal associated with ontologizing ontolog might include the ability to ask more "difficult"/"interesting" questions that google by itself cannot answered [11:12] PeterBrown joined [11:12] PeterBrown left [11:12] anonymous joined [11:13] anonymous morphed into PeterBrown [11:15] ArturoSanchez left [11:15] ArturoSanchez joined [11:20] PeterBrown I'm not going to be able to stay long on this call, but one key concern I have about this project is: what *specifically* can we add that cannot be or is not being provided currently by existing tools? And supplemental to that: what can we provide/promote that will serve as a demonstrator of our own belief of the importance of ontology in contrast to the full-text search paradigm? In other words: Should we be eating our own dog food? [11:24] RexBrooks It seems to me that Peter defined the original, general context. Lisa did a good job of grasping the general audience of users without losing the fundamental connection among the users--increasing understanding of the value of ontology. She also touched on tools briefly. Bob laid out a process of arriving at an appropriate set of tools using an identification of where in Leo Obrst's spectrum of semantic tools and concepts from lesser to greater expressivity we want to be. He also provided a ballpark for the amount of work likely to be needed. Patrick laid out a process for arriving at an appropriate value proposition--what's in it for the users. I wanted to build a summary as we go along because, I, too, will have to drop off the call. But the point I wanted to bring up the idea that we might want to choose to select a narrower audience rather than a broader audience for the sake of providing a more clear benefit to our users. [11:26] RexBrooks I wonder what our panelists think about that idea--narrowing the audience to provide a more clear message of the benefit. [11:28] PeterBrown The only problem with a narrower audience is that we might end up with a self-referential control group: we are hardly the most representative cross-section of users! But equally, that approach would provide a clear impetus to provide *us* with additional tools for *our* work: if that is for a wider, later, benefit and audience, so much the better. As long as we try to keep an eye on the longer-term goals, I'd be for a narrower initial focus [11:33] ArturoSanchez In principle, both approaches can be accommodated (i.e. narrowing or not) [11:34] ArturoSanchez if we come up with (a taxonomy) of roles and what they desire. Then we can concentrate [11:34] ArturoSanchez on roles [11:35] PeterBrown which brings us back to Denise's slide on "context" - I would agree that this seems to be the best starting point [11:40] PeterBrown left [11:41] ArturoSanchez Examples of questions that a google search might not be able to answer. The role would be that of a researcher (such as myself) working on ontologies: [11:41] ArturoSanchez (1) who is working on ? (2) what resources are available on ? (3) what concepts are related to ? (4) this concept is also referred to as ____ [11:42] RexBrooks I think Max's approach can be used, regardless of focus. And it is valuable in and of itself. [11:49] RexBrooks I also think what Pat just said makes sense. But, I would, since that's the question of scope or focus, again. [11:52] RexBrooks As a user, one of the benefits I would love to have is just a common sense explanation of what each of the major Upper Ontologies is best for? [11:59] RexBrooks left [11:59] RexBrooks joined [12:04] JakubKotowski left [12:06] RexBrooks left [12:12] ArturoSanchez left [12:17] DeniseBedford left