ppy/chat-transcript_edited_20110224b.txt PeterYim: . Welcome to the OntologySummit2011: Panel Session-5 - Strategies for 'Making the Case' - Thu 2011_02_24 Summit Theme: OntologySummit2011: Making the Case for Ontology Session Title: Strategies for 'Making the Case' - Take-I Session Co-chairs: Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction, UK) & Mr. PeterYim (Ontolog; CIM3) Panelists: * Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction, UK) - "Show me the Money: the benefits trail for Ontology" * Dr. NormanWinarsky (SRI Ventures) - "The Story of Siri, and SRI's Venture Incubator Process" * Dr. DeniseBedford (Kent State University) - "Role of Ontologies in Master Data Management" * Mr. ChrisPartridge (BORO Solutions) - "Be pragmatic, be opportunistic" * Mr. PeterYim (Ontolog; CIM3) - "Science & Technology that change the world: beyond good work, marketing stunts and logic" --- Please refer to details (dail-in numbers, agenda, slides etc.) on the session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_02_24 ---------------------------- = Proceedings: = anonymous1 morphed into MichelVandenBossche anonymous1 morphed into DavidLeal anonymous1 morphed into ChrisPartridge anonymous3 morphed into FabianNeuhaus anonymous1 morphed into NormanWinarsky anonymous3 morphed into BruceMusicus anonymous5 morphed into FrankOlken BruceMusicus1 morphed into BruceMusicus anonymous8 morphed into MichaelRiben anonymous2 morphed into PhilMurray anonymous3 morphed into AnneHunt anonymous7 morphed into TonyRhem SteveRay: Friendly code reminder: *3 to unmute, *2 to mute anonymous2 morphed into DustinCote anonymous2 morphed into ByronDavies FrankOlken: I tried to call in with Google voip, and was told the conference calling number was not a legal phone number - so I am using my cell phone. SteveRay: @Frank: It appears that this conference calling service is blocked by some (Google included). I had the same issue in the past, and now just use my Vonage account for this call. SteveRay: @Byron: Did you need a question answered? We could try via chat. ByronDavies: Moderator, please remove me from the queue. SteveRay: @Byron: Done. You can toggle raising and lowering your hand by clicking the little hand icon at the lower right. anonymous3 morphed into PavithraKenjige ToddSchneider: Matthew, could you repeat the two uses of ontologies? Matthew West: @Todd - Use 1 is in providing information through reasoning. Use 2 is in supporting information systems through models and Master Data Mgt and data quality analysis. SteveRay: @Norman: I didn't catch the third ingredient for a successful venture. I got: Stellar team; great market concept. Matthew West: @steve 3rd is Disruptive Technology Solution. RexBrooks: Sorry I got here late, unavoidable. RexBrooks: I think the point that both Denise and Chris have made is that we should focus on solving a use-case problem rather than making a case for ontology per se. RexBrooks: In fact how we solve their problems may require that we not make a point of using semantics or ontology. SteveRay: @Rex: Thus, our application framework should be very useful. RexBrooks: @Steve: right! RexBrooks: @Steve: How do we incorporate the almost unanimous conclusions of this session into application framework, a la siri? RexBrooks: We have the chicken and egg catch 22 situation where we need the context but to get the context we need the context to make the case.? SteveRay: @Rex: I'd say: 1. Identify the audience. 2. Prepare the pitch for that audience. Siri's audience was the VC community as far as I can tell. SteveRay: I'm hoping the Application Framework will list each application type, each audience type, and each value metric. RexBrooks: Can we identify a bunch of problems (use-cases) we can solve? and then use that to develop the application framework? SteveRay: @Rex: That was one of the drivers behind the Use Case track - to find actual use cases and find out what worked when making the case. ToddSchneider: The particular stake holders will also impact which metrics are of interest. SteveRay: I agree RexBrooks: @Steve: then I think Todd's idea of a matrix is a good idea to produce a set of solutions, audiences, money-trail, etc. RexBrooks: And, of course, metrics! SteveRay: @Rex: Yes. I think it's a 3D cube: Application type; Audience type; Value metric LeoObrst: I agree with Peter, and with Chris, because it is a matter of both accuracy and a matter of trust. PavithraKenjige: @Peter - on slide 4, it says CIO and System architects... It is the job of the enterprise architects to create an Ontology for the organizations for it to be useful for organizational wide interoperability. System Architects have narrower responsibilities limited to systems that they are responsible for.. PeterYim: (added this response subsequently) @PavithraKenjige - I was using the term "system" in a very broad sense - including that of enterprise systems, human systems, etc., and not just tools systems or (computer-based) application systems. PavithraKenjige: Application Architecture, would deal with application layer, Ontology should be addressed when addressing information/ semantics of the information that application architecture has to store or manipulate. For example, in a three tier architecture, or service oriented software or application architecture, they have to work with the information they have to work with.. PhilMurray: Re: "Ontologies are overrated." Comparable to response to tech writer presenting a draft to a manager for review: "I've done a little wordsmithing myself." To some people, Ontology engineering looks like something very simple made more difficult and more expensive ... and not at all providing something the rest of us can't do. MikeBennett: Is one issue the "Prototype" problem you also see with software: people form a mental picture of the thing they saw, and picture this whenever they hear the word "ontology". TerryLongstreth: @Peter - I like your observation that "ontology" covers a range of strategic concepts, from Controlled Vocabularies to Fully axiomatized logical frameworks (I hope I've paraphrased that accurately). Do we need an enumeration of that spectrum, with target markets for the individual strategies? ToddSchneider: Have to go. Thank to all the speakers. PeterYim: @TerryLongstreth - I believe we addressed this ("What is an Ontology") back in 2007 - see: Ontology Summit 2007 - Ontology, Taxonomy, Folksonomy: Understanding the Distinctions - http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007 SteveRay: @Terry: That was the subject of our 2007 Ontology Summit. See http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007 TerryLongstreth: @Peter - I'm aware, but my point is that all of these are being called ontologies, without a clear definition of how they should relate to each other. Was that discussed in 2007? PeterYim: @Terry - in particular - the LeoObrst + MichaelGruninger "Ontology Framework" presentation is enlightening - see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007_Framework_Session#nid10HH PeterYim: @Terry - absolutely! hopefully, at this Summit (2011), we will take that one step forward and associate the "right" type of ontology to specific business problems RexBrooks: My line dropped as well, just as I was about to ask for input into a matrix that Todd and I will put together, but I'd like to see a set of use-cases with specific problems we can solve so we can identify the kind of application framework that will be needed and what metrics we can use to measure how effectively we solve those problems. AnneHunt: Sorry, I could only stay until 11. Good conversation--see you next time. NicolaGuarino: Have to go. Great session! PeterYim: Thanks, Anne ... thanks, Nicola ... SteveRay: @Rex: Be sure to coordinate with the Track 1 team that is tasked with creating the Application Framework. RexBrooks: @Steve: we should do that tomorrow. SteveRay: @Rex: Indeed. And this is the focus of next Thursday's session: Integrating the Framework, the Use cases, and the value metrics. RexBrooks: @Peter: Exactly! We can focus on the solution to problems, and not worry about telling everyone how we solve it. PeterYim: MatthewWest suggested: "Ontology inside!" RexBrooks: Ontology Onboard! MikeBennett: Ontology enabled? PavithraKenjige: Problem with selling the concept of Ontology is - we treat it as Semantic technology dependent like RDF and Owl! I wonder it is necessary to limit it that way? PhilMurray: @Leo Obrst (paraphrased): "People will reinvent what ontologies do while deprecating ontology engineering." Absolutely true. So KR people need to be associated strongly with something that has high visibility and clearly understood impact. The attention to Watson could be a springboard for that. RexBrooks: @Leo: one thing we need to be careful about is using appropriate messages per audience. When speaking to technicians, we can say things we shouldn't attempt with a non-technical, managerial or venture capitalist audience. PhilMurray: Gotta go. And thanks, Peter, for fixing my access. Good discussion, all. PeterYim: Thank you for your participation and contribution, Phil ... bye NormanWinarsky: Have to go. Thanks so much for the great discussion. MatthewWest: Thank you very much Norman MikeBennett: Some fantastic insights in today's session! PavithraKenjige: thank you PeterYim: Great session ... thank you all! PeterYim: - session ended: 11:32am PST --