|
Understood Paola,
To some extent, that's what I meant by "bleeding deacons."
While I am not a convenor, I don't quite qualify, but I have noted
this tendency in myself. Some time ago, I found myself in a similar
situation with a group I had helped get started, and it was not until
later, that I began to see that I had inadvertently alienated several
valuable contributors.
However, as I said, I think this forum is healthy enough to
withstand these kinds of growing pains. I think that early next year,
in the usual mid-winter northern hemisphere lull, there will be a
period of time when we can have a few more planning sessions, and,
perhaps we can find a way to be more inclusive.
There are several ways we could achieve this, but rather than
stimulate that conversation right now, when I'm up to my elbows in
alligators myself, I invite everyone to remind me in January and I
will list some of my ideas about how we can expand the tent, or build
some connected tents for Ontolog SIGs perhaps?
Cheers,
Rex
At 11:16 AM +0700 10/24/07, paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Rex, and all
not just that though
You know I am a 100 percent supporter of the good work done by this
group
Let's admit it - there are some double standards. From time to time,
list contributors
get reprimanded for referencing their own work 'if it's not open
content'.
Fair enough.
>From time to time, one of the list convenors or their friends
reference their own
'not open content ' work, and get invited to give a talk about it
instead.
To me - this comes across as self propaganda and maybe that's
what 'dowgrades' the credibility and integrity of the group.
Btw - I forgot to mention my own work in rules. will reply
separately
pdm
On 10/24/07, Chris Menzel < cmenzel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Nice, thoughtful reflections, thanks.
-chris
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 06:13:19AM -0700, Rex Brooks wrote:
> Paola, Chris, et al,
>
> I have a short observation I would like to make.
>
> Some of the apparent shortcomings of this Forum are results of
its
> increasing success. Having been around for a couple of years now,
I have
> watched the attendance move from 10-20 per session plus those who
attend
> asynchronously using the archived recordings to sometimes as many
as 40-50
> with hundreds attending and reattending asynchronously. However
our average
> now seems usually in the 20-30 range at which our normal
procedure of
> having folks introduce themselves becomes difficult or
impossible.
>
> Also our planning sessions are growing fewer and farther between,
which is
> another incipient difficulty for getting our diversity
represented well in
> presentations.
>
> No doubt the advent of the Semantic Web is responsible for this,
as slowly
> developing as it is (even though that rate of development is 100%
above
> what could have been possible prior to the advent of the web or
the
> inevitable dotcom bubble bust which actually
marked the first stage of
> maturation from of Web 1.0 from infancy to toddlerhood by
analogy).
>
> The point is that we are seeing effects from this success. We've
reached
> what may be a critical mass for effecting a change in the
development and
> adoption of Semantic Web technologies. We are, I think, somewhere
in the
> trough of interest between the first peak of enthusiasm during
the
> introductory phase of a technology (which I think may have been
marked by
> last years first Ontology Summit and the peak of interest when
funding
> dollars rush in to exploit a perceived opportunity. I have seen
this before
> a few times without being aware of the social and economic
dynamic at work
> in these times.
>
> (Please note, our Forum is not the measure I'm using for gauging
this
> interest, but rather the attendance at related conferences such
as the
> Semantic Technologies Conference last year in San Jose, CA and
the trade
> journal "buzz" around Web 2.0)
>
> Unfortunately, the usual path these tech waves or wavelets take
in these
> troughs is often marked by a number of relatively deleterious
syndromes
> when pioneers are often left behind. One such syndrome
pits enthusiastic
> (relative) newcomers against "bleeding deacons," folks
like myself who have
> been onboard a while and have a semi-religious tendency to
hearken back to
> the "good old days." I'm not saying that this is one
such syndrome, just
> that as recently as two years ago, we had a difficult time
attracting
> speakers and often our planning sessions outnumbered our
presentations or
> panel discussions.
>
> All in all, I think this current concern about how speakers
and
> presentations make their way to center stage is a healthy sign,
even if
> sometimes it can seem uncomfortable or contentious. I think our
community
> is healthy enough to weather a few 'growing pains." I also
think we want to
> forge ahead, and, if anything, build a bigger tent, or
water-cooler to use
> Peter's analogy.
>
> Cheers,
> Rex
>
>
>
> At 1:56 PM +0700 10/23/07, paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
wrote:
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>> John [...] suggested no such thing --
>>> indeed, quite the opposite; he said that most
anyone on the ontolog list
>>> would find the work interesting.
>>
>> Yes, I also read it that way. And sure Leo's work is
interesting and
>> relevant, and exciting
>> like other ideas proposed to the list that, for some reason,
do not
>> seem to get 'traction' that (arguably) the may equally
deserve.
>>
>> Having worked (very briefely though) in the theater (after a
brief
>> spell in the circus </JOKE>), I have learned
that the success of an
>> act often depends on how well rewarded the 'claque'
is. Kinda social
>> behaviour issue.
>>
>> In online discussions groups, many use a trick, as I am sure
we all know:
>> prompt a student or an associate to ask a question on list,
so that
>> the answer can be elegantly and casually queued in, and let a
couple
>> of peers support the lucky timeliness and fitness
of our response,
>> certain that sooner or later favour will be returned - thats
how clans
>> are formed . (scratch my back and I ll scratch yours). This
is common
>> tactics, and widely adopted especially in politics, other
times just
>> rather innocently, or even legitimately done (nothing wrong
with
>> promoting one's work)
>>
>> I am personally interested in most things (learn, learn) and
I
>> apologise first, for not attending the presentations in
person - Idue
>> to time zone contrating - though I plan listen to ALL of them
time
>> permitting and will review all the work accordingly at the
earliest
>> opportunity. I also apologise for not supporting more
actively the
>> ideas that I am intersted in - for example was it adrian
walker, or
>> someone else, who sent a post recently with link about
reviving an old
>> presentation on 'unifying logic' or something like that- that
was also
>> very interesting I'd like to hear more. Sorry for not
replying -
>>
>> Azamat perhaps you should substantiate and elaborate, in
appropriate
>> form, what you mean by 'derivative' there, might add an
interesting
>> persective to understanding the context of the
presentation.
>>
>> Finally, I think anyone should be able to suggest a
presentation,
>> either their own work or someone else's. While number of
people
>> attending is a good measure of 'success' it is not the only
factor to
>> determine whether the work is important/interesting/exciting,
rather
>> the size of the budgets they administer, or how busy people
were on
>> that day, or how bad was the traffic on the way to the
office
>> (complexity rules). Very British 'speakers corner' concept,
where
>> anyone coud walk up and take the public stand. Amazing how
may people
>> stopped and listened everyday, you wouldnt know if they were
really
>> interested or just had nothing better to do! dunno if its
still going
>> though.
>>
>> A lot of important/interesting/exiting work is not known,
nor
>> understood, and the purpose of this forum is also to shed
light on
>> that aspect of reality, not just to promote and
acclaim what is
>> already appreciated
>>
>> I am grateful to all for the learning opportunity, and I look
forward
>> to reading Leo's paper/slides, any critical
reviews thereof, as well
>> as to listen to what anyone else's has got to say.
>>
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Paola Di Maio
>>
>>
>>
>> He only recommended, helpfully, that
>>> any large documents should be made available
on the web rather than sent
>>> out via the list.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, all Leo did was inform the list
of work that he and his
>>> group have done which he (rightly) felt might
be of interest to forum
>>> members. If that is self-promotion
of a sort that "downgrades" the
>>> forum, then almost everyone here is guilty --
you, in particular.
>>> Fortunately, this definition of self-promotion
is ridiculous. The list
>>> exists in part for ontology researchers to
share their work with others,
>>> so long as that work is freely
available. And, knowing Leo, as you
>>> obviously do not, I would venture that
self-promotion was the last thing
>>> he had in mind.
>>>
>>> > Besides, it is hardly a big deal to
publicly discuss derivative works
>>> > with narrow scope? This Forum
fully deserves high-quality agenda,
>>> > which should be offered by impartial
members.
>>>
>>> There is no such thing an "impartial"
member. Everyone is partial to
>>> their own views and not everyone is going to
agree on what is original
>>> and what is derivative, what is high-quality
and what is not, what is
>>> narrow and what is not. What there
is, hopefully, is tolerance of
>>> diverse viewpoints (and, of course, spirited
debate ;-). This is an
>>> open forum and one of its strengths is that a
wide range of views are
>>> represented and a diversity of research is
publicized and discussed.
>>> People get to decide for themselves what is
relevant and important to
>>> them. That's why, in particular,
you are able to promote your own work
>>> here without objection even though not
everyone finds it relevant or
>>> important.
>>>
>>> > Now to make prime presentations, we have
to invite the original
>>> > researchers able to say something fresh
or groundbreaking. I opine
>>> > many of the participants will be
'enthusiastic' to learn what's going
>>> > on with the following hot subjects:
>> >
>>> Probably so. And lots more
besides. Fortunately, no one person gets to
>>> make unilateral decisions about what is
"hot", who should present, and
>>> what should be discussed.
>>>
>>> Chris Menzel
>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Paola Di Maio
>> School of IT
>> www.mfu.ac.th
>> *********************************************
>>
>>
_________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
> --
> Rex Brooks
> President, CEO
> Starbourne Communications Design
> GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
> Berkeley, CA 94702
> Tel: 510-898-0670
--
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
*********************************************
_________________________________________________________________
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
--
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670
_________________________________________________________________
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 (01)
|