Thanks Rex for seeing the point
It's the human nature, and maybe the old system that as you suggest may no longer be sustainable as the stuff grows but the volunteers managing it are always the same
I think this community deserves an open and participatory future, so that it can document and contribute to the progress of science overall, and not just some parts of it.
A simple open system where people can schedule their talks, upload their slides and select/appoint the moderator on a rotation basis (so that it does not always have to be the same poor Peter, who is volunteering most of the time for this task) might be an idea, as surely there may be many others
(To achieve optimum, we must work with the whole. I am just reading about this)
cheers
P
On 10/24/07, Rex Brooks <
rexb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
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
--
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 (01)
|