Peter, (01)
I'm a librarian and belong to "taxonomy, thesauri, ontology" group. I
joined this list to learn more about ontologies and the technology behind
them and haven't been disappointed. I expect and accept that I will have a
hard time following some of the discussions. I don't think that you should
segregate into more lists. I agree with John Sowa the volume will drop
eventually. (02)
Kathy
__________________________________________
Kathleen Ellis - Senior Information Associate
LINK -- Lilly Information and Knowledge
Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN 46285
Email: kaellis@xxxxxxxxx Voice: 317-277-4071 Fax:317-276-4418 (03)
Peter Yim
<peter.yim@xxxxxx
om> To
Sent by: "[ontolog-forum]"
ontolog-forum-bou <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
nces@xxxxxxxxxxxx cc
.net
Subject
Re: [ontolog-forum] spinning-off
03/21/2007 11:27 the volume traffic from the
PM general discussion list (04)
Please respond to
"[ontolog-forum]
"
<ontolog-forum@on
tolog.cim3.net> (05)
John et al., (06)
Good insight, John. ... I agree. (07)
Therefore, if we were to segregate into more lists, it probably should
come from the notion that: (08)
(a) [ontolog-forum] remians the general discussion list, which also
serves as the marker of Ontolog community membership. (09)
(b) other lists should best be created for: (010)
(b.1) special purposes: like "announcements" (where a broadcast list
function is needed, and which actually differs from that of a
discussion list), "admin", "test", ... etc., or (011)
(b.2) the purpose of helping cluster sub-groups of the overall
membership by their interests or activities. (012)
With the Ontology Summit 2007 initiative, with the theme of "Ontology,
Taxonomy, Folksonmy: Understanding the Distinctions" we are actually
expanding the reach of our membership to cover constituencies that
never used to be prominently represented in the Ontolog membership
before (while we may or may not succeed in the endeavor, I purport
that it is a good thing.) (013)
Therefore, with an expanded representation, the pertinent question is
"Are all members (now and coming) interested in the same discussions?
(volume aside)" ... if so, maybe we shouldn't consider spinning some
of the discussion to a new list at all. If not, then, we should at
least give the matter due consideration in this light (although that
still doesn't mean we need to split). (014)
Along the same line of thought, we actually have both "formal" and
"informal" ontology in our charter. Are these the same (cluster of)
people, or naturally different clusters ? (015)
I am personally in favor of the general "membership discourse" staying
on one list ... because there is so much we can learn from one
another, even (especially?) when we are NOT from the same constituency
... I believe a lot of value can be derived from it. (016)
... it is when we go into specific projects (where there are 'real
world' constraints like schedules, deadlines, deliverables, team
organization and structures, ...etc.) that we need specific
project-based lists (for the specific team members of the project.)
.... and that is almost WHAT WE HAVE NOW. (017)
So, maybe proper client-side message filtering could do the trick
after all. And, as Duane suggested earlier (and Chris Menzel actually
started, a while back, ref:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2007-02/msg00036.html), we
should put effort into helping people set up their message filters,
instead. (018)
Did you mean to suggest that we should stay put, John? (019)
Anyone else ... other thoughts? (020)
Regards. =ppy
-- (021)
On 3/21/07, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Peter,
>
> I realize that the volume has been rather high lately,
> but I suspect that it won't remain so high.
>
> What often happens on many email lists is that a few
> issues come up that many people are concerned about.
> That will stimulate some heated exchanges over a
> period of a week or two.
>
> But after a while, everybody has more or less exhausted
> what they had to say on that range of issues, and the
> list becomes much quieter.
>
> I doubt that the high level of activity on this list
> will last much longer.
>
> John
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (022)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (023)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (024)
|