ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] spinning-off the volume traffic from the general dis

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Steve Ray <ray@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:27:15 -0700
Message-id: <1174584435.4602bc735216b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I concur. For the time being I'm simply auto-filing the many messages, and will
resume reading them when the tempo decreases. In the long run, I think there
will be unnecessary confusion over many different mail addresses if we split it 
up.    (01)

- Steve Ray (temporarily connected to the internet)    (02)


Quoting Kathleen A Ellis <ELLIS_KATHLEEN_A@xxxxxxxxx>:    (03)

> Peter,
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>                                                                            
>              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             
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
>              Please respond to                                             
>              "[ontolog-forum]                                              
>                      "                                                     
>              <ontolog-forum@on                                             
>               tolog.cim3.net>                                              
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John et al.,
> 
> Good insight, John. ... I agree.
> 
> Therefore, if we were to segregate into more lists, it probably should
> come from the notion that:
> 
> (a) [ontolog-forum] remians the general discussion list, which also
> serves as the marker of Ontolog community membership.
> 
> (b) other lists should best be created for:
> 
> (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
> 
> (b.2) the purpose of helping cluster sub-groups of the overall
> membership by their interests or activities.
> 
> 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.)
> 
> 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).
> 
> 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 ?
> 
> 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.
> 
> ... 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Did you mean to suggest that we should stay put, John?
> 
> Anyone else ... other thoughts?
> 
> Regards.  =ppy
> --
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 
>  
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>  
>     (04)



_________________________________________________________________
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    (05)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>