ppy/chat-transcript_unedited_20110224a.txt Chat transcript from room: ontolog_20110224 2011-02-24 GMT-08:00 [08:47] 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: = . [09:12] anonymous1 morphed into Michel Vanden Bossche [09:20] anonymous1 morphed into David Leal [09:27] anonymous1 morphed into Chris Partridge [09:29] anonymous3 morphed into FabianNeuhaus [09:29] anonymous1 morphed into NormanWinarsky [09:30] anonymous3 morphed into Bruce Musicus [09:35] SteveRay: @Peter: I am here, but not listed as attending yet on the wiki. [09:35] anonymous5 morphed into Frank Olken [09:35] Bruce Musicus1 morphed into Bruce Musicus [09:35] anonymous8 morphed into MichaelRiben [09:35] anonymous2 morphed into Phil Murray [09:35] anonymous3 morphed into Anne Hunt [09:36] anonymous7 morphed into Tony Rhem [09:36] Frank Olken: @Peter: I am also on the call, but not listed on the wiki as attending. [09:36] SteveRay: Friendly code reminder: *3 to unmute, *2 to mute [09:36] anonymous2 morphed into Dustin Cote [09:37] Frank Olken: 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. [09:38] MikeBennett: FYI I'm not one of the UK numbers as I'm on Skype [09:39] 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. [09:40] SteveRay: @Byron: Did you need a question answered? We could try via chat. [09:41] Chris Partridge: @Peter - I am calling in to the US number using skype - so I do not know my number. [09:42] anonymous3 morphed into PavithraKenjige [09:44] ToddSchneider: Matthew, could you repeat the two uses of ontologies? [09:45] anonymous2: Still figuring things out. [09:45] anonymous2 morphed into Byron Davies [09:46] Byron Davies: Moderator, please remove me from the queue. [09:48] SteveRay: @Byron: Done. You can toggle raising and lowering your hand by clicking the little hand icon at the lower right. [10:01] SteveRay: @Norman: I didn't catch the third ingredient for a successful venture. I got: Stellar team; great market concept. [10:04] 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. [10:04] Dustin Cote1 morphed into Dustin Cote [10:05] Matthew West: @steve 3rd is Disruptive Technology Solution. [10:08] RexBrooks: Sorry I got here late, unavoidable. [10:16] Chris Partridge: @peter do I need to unmute myself [10:16] LeoObrst: Will be in and out today, folks. [10:20] 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. [10:21] SteveRay1: @Rex: Thus, our application framework should be very useful. [10:21] RexBrooks: In fact how we solve their problems may require that we not make a point of using semantics or ontology. [10:22] RexBrooks: @Steve: right! [10:22] SteveRay1 morphed into SteveRay [10:29] PavithraKenjige: Peter on slide 4, it says CIO and System architects... It is the job of the enterprise architects to create a 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.. [10:39] RexBrooks: @Steve: How do we incorporate the almost unanimous conclusions of this session into application framework, a la siri? [10:41] 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.? [10:43] 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. [10:45] SteveRay: I'm hoping the Application Framework will list each application type, each audience type, and each value metric. [10:46] RexBrooks: Can we identify a bunch of problems (use-cases) we can solve? and then use that to develop the application framework. [10:46] RexBrooks: ? [10:47] 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. [10:47] ToddSchneider: The particular stake holders will also impact which metrics are of interest. [10:48] SteveRay: I agree [10:48] 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. [10:49] RexBrooks: And, of course, metrics! [10:49] LeoObrst: I agree with Peter, and with Chris, because it is a matter of both accuracy and a matter of trust. [10:49] SteveRay: @Rex: Yes. I think it's a 3D cube: Application type; Audience type; Value metric [10:49] 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 ore application architecture, they have to work with the information they have to work with.. [10:50] Phil Murray: 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. [10:51] 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". [10:51] 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? [10:52] LeoObrst: Unfortunately my chat session keeps disconnecting. [10:52] ToddSchneider: Have to go. Thank to all the speakers. [10:54] PeterYim: @TerryLongstreth - I believe we address 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 [10:54] SteveRay: @Terry: That was the subject of our 2007 Ontology Summit. See http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007 [10:54] Chris Partridge: Mine too [10:54] Chris Partridge: Disconnecting I mean [10:54] Matthew West: My line dropped, sorry [10:55] 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? [10:56] 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 [10:58] 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 [11:00] 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. [11:01] Anne Hunt1: Sorry, I could only stay until 11. Good conversation--see you next time. [11:01] NicolaGuarino: Have to go. Great session! [11:01] PeterYim: Thanks, Anne ... thanks, Nicola ... [11:02] SteveRay: @Rex: Be sure to coordinate with the Track 1 team that is tasked with creating the Application Framework. [11:02] RexBrooks: @Steve: we should do that tomorrow. [11:03] SteveRay: @Rex: Indeed. And this is the focus of next Thursday's session: Integrating the Framework, the Use cases, and the value metrics. [11:07] RexBrooks: @Peter: Exactly! We can focus on the solution to problems, and not worry about telling everyone how we solve it. [11:08] RexBrooks: Ontology Onboard! [11:08] PeterYim: Matthew suggested: "Ontology inside!" [11:08] MikeBennett: Ontology enabled? [11:13] PavithraKenjige: Problem with selling the concept of Ontology is - we treat it as Semnntic technology dependent like RDF and Owl! I wonder it is necessary to limit it that way? [11:14] Phil Murray: @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. [11:15] 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. [11:15] Chris Partridge: My un-mute does not appear to work - [11:15] Chris Partridge: what should I do? [11:16] MikeBennett: I have previously failed to unmute skype [11:16] Chris Partridge: Ahhh [11:16] MikeBennett: To try, pull up the "dial" thing [11:16] Chris Partridge: I am using the Dial Pad [11:16] Chris Partridge: Sure. [11:16] PeterYim: @ChrisPartridge - believe I have unmuted you [11:20] Phil Murray: Gotta go. And thanks, Peter, for fixing my access. Good discussion, all. [11:20] PeterYim: Thank you for your participation and contribution, Phil ... bye [11:28] NormanWinarsky2: Have to go. Thanks so much for the great discussion. [11:29] Matthew West: Thank you very much Norman [11:31] MikeBennett: Some fantastic insights in today's session! [11:32] PavithraKenjige: thank you [11:32] PeterYim: Great session ... thank you all! [11:32] PeterYim: - session ended: 11:32am PST --