| Hi Todd and Francesca,
Now for my very, very late response to Todd's late response.
Based on why I see in this thread, I conclude that we should just start trying to come up with definitions/analyses or whatever they are to be called, for, first, the terms from the summer school, and second, whatever other terms each person sees fit based on his or her judgment. I think the terms from the summer school are on the web site. Others can be added as we proceed.
It looks like we are maintaining the education committee mailing list as our means of keeping each other updated. So, I will pay attention to that and plan to send out new messages to it concerning this project.
Best
Adam Francesca,
Please excuse the extreme delay in responding.
iaoa-education-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 04/17/2013 07:13:11 AM:
> My thoughts to Todd's email:
> 1. The discussion about the Committee's chairperson is important yet
> not helpful for the status quo.
> The priority as I see it is to get things started.
--->>> Agreed.
> We are, for now I am, in good hands.
> We only need to make sure the work is equally distributed among
> participants (or otherwise we should re-scope the dimension of the
> project).
--->>> The participants being you, Adam, and myself, correct?
> The fact that we can get some good guidelines from both of
> you in terms of deadlines and internal communication is I think for
> everybody clear.
--->>> Not being found of deadlines, though they are useful, are
there any suggestions/proposals?
> 2. Stick to the original goals of the project and yet make the work
> a good appetizer. In one email previous to your last, I cited Todd
> by asking the question: "who are the potential end users of this
> terminology list?"
--->>> My original 'end user' was me, but of course my confusion(s) are
not unique, so I would say the set of end users would include
anyone interested in ontology.
One particular group would certainly benefit, those engaged in
the semantic web (or software developers whose confuse object
oriented analysis with ontological analysis:).
> We can provide a set of terms with different interpretations, but
> (a) we might not be able to reach an agreement over them (if we ever
> want to achieve one)
--->>> Yes. There are certainly terms or concepts for which there
are legitimate differences in interpretations. I would hope that,
in the cases of multiple interpretations, we can provide a partial
list of them, maybe a synopsis/summary of the differences and
pointers/URLs to more authoritative sources.
Of course, we should expect rebuttal or corrections.
> and (b) we are doing a classification
> researchers already do or are able to do by themselves.
--->>> I'd prefer not to classify if it can be avoided. If researchers
have done this, then I think it in the scope of IAOAs charter
to help publicize this work.
> Where is the added value of our work?
--->>> Cataloguing or aggregating disparate work (that 'end users'
might not otherwise have the time or inclination to root out)
can provide value.
> Thoughts: a list of the most
> controversial terms and vice versa a list of the terms which seem to
> have already reached general tacit agreement given their extensive use.
--->>> As I mentioned in earlier e-mail, my initial impetus for a list
of terminology was last summers IAOA summer school and the lack
of definitions.
But it became clear, after speaking to others at the event, I was
not alone. Moreover there seemed to be a dependency among the terms.
Some appeared more fundamental (i.e., axiomatic) then others.
> We can tackle this and look for their robustness.
--->>> Robustness? How should I interpret this in the context of a term?
> A list of terms which have been discarded for a way or another and/
> or one of terms which have rarely or never been contemplated.
--->>> I'd suggest a more simple minded approach, at least initially.
Which are the more relevant common terms across the various
disciplines? Or perhaps those terms used in multiple disciplines
with variations in interpretation (e.g., class, concept, type).
> Hypothetically, we could run internal surveys and ask users which
> general terms they expect to deal with in an ontology and start from
> the ones proposed.
--->>> Survey usually require a great deal of effort and don't always
yield effective or sufficient results. Given the communities
addressed by our set of terms, I would expect we'll get a lot
or responses.
But for the moment, I think it more expeditious for this first
iteration to select the terms ourselves based on our best judgement.
> Final remark: we are still running this conversation on multiple
> channels, including the whole Education Committee.
> If this topic is of interest for Someone else, please let us know.
> If on the contrary you don't want to receive updates and further
> communication, let us know as well.
--->>> Agreed.
> Looking forward to your reply,
--->>> Here it is, finally. I again I apologize for the long delay.
Cheers.
Todd
_____________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/iaoa-education/
Committee File-share: http://iaoa.cim3.net/file/work/Committee/Education/
Committee Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?IaoaEducation
Activities Blog: http://iaoa-activities.blogspot.com/ ...(coming!)
To join: please email committee chair or to: info @ iaoa.org
IAOA website: http://iaoa.org
------------------ Adam M. Goldstein PhD, MSLIS -- z_californianus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxhttp://www.shiftingbalance.org http://www.twitter.com/z_californianus -- http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=180621 -- -- Spellman 205
(914) 637-2717 (msg)
--
Dept of Philosophy
Iona College
715 North Avenue
New Rochelle NY 10801
|