Duane
I am not sure what the fuss was about.
Are you referring to the technology stack diagrams? They do not look
like UML to me (but then my knowledge of UML is limited).
You have a couple of UML-like diagrams at the beginning.... (01)
As a matter of fact (as Deb should know) quite a few people are
using UML to 'do' KR. Including Elisa Kendall at SandPiper and Steven
Cranefield in NZ. (02)
But, the real issue is really how Ontology might impact Web 2.0. I
can speak from first hand experience that it does! We (I) have built
an ontology representing our domain knowledge in the area of home
improvement. We are using it on a live basis to match customers with
service providers. That is about as Web 2.0 as it gets (including all
the acronym soup ...) (03)
Frank (04)
On Nov 8, 2007, at 2:37 PM, Duane Nickull wrote: (05)
> I recently spoke at Web 2.0 conference in Berlin and made some
> statements
> about what folksonomy represents but tied it into ontology. One
> person in
> particular seemed to take exception that I used UML diagrams to
> represent
> that tags (folksonomy representation terms) in a pragmatc manner and
> linked
> to the ISO/IEC 1119 conceptual domain and he thinks UML use was
> overkill.
>
> I would like to ask a favor of each of you:
>
> 1. Please review my slide deck from
> http://www.slideshare.net/tag/web2expoberlin or
> http://www.slideshare.net/adunne/web-20-design-patterns-models-and-analysis
>
> It is entitled Web 2.0 Design patterns, modes etc. and has a section
> on the
> design section.
>
> 2. If, and only if, you fully agree that the USE of UML was
> appropriate,
> please create a quick account and log in to:
> http://feedback.berlin.web2expo.com/feedbacks/5590-web-2-0-design-patterns-m
> odels-and-analysis
>
> And express this. If you like it, please vote for it too. And
> express you
> opinion.
>
> All of these slides are open source and you can take them and
> present as
> your own with no attribution if you like the topics.
>
> IMO - this is really important as ontology I more and more and
> important
> subject in Web 2.0. I have written about this in the book and it
> would be a
> share to have this link dismissed because one person thinks all we
> need are
> tags.
>
> It is also a manner in which one Web 20 person may be dismissing
> ontology's
> impact on Web 2.0 and may affect this roupd in the future.
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Duane Nickull
> PS - please ask me if I can ever return the favour. Also - if you
> agree
> with the other person, please support that truth. I have not wish
> to censor
> or falsely share public perception.
>
> It would be greatly appreicated!!!!!
>
>
>
>
> --
> **********************************************************************
> "Speaking only for myself"
> Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com
> Community Music - http://www.mix2r.com
> My Band - http://www.myspace.com/22ndcentury
> Adobe MAX 2008 - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2007/08/adobe-max-2008.html
> **********************************************************************
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|