Hello Pavithra, (01)
> [PK] I would like t ot create a google email group ... [for] discussion on
> ontology related discussion that may be outside of this forum (02)
[ppy] that sounds good. Maybe you can consider teaming up with Paola
who is about to move out her discussions too. (03)
> [PK] Peter can use this forum strictly to notify meeting ... (04)
[ppy] we already have the [ontolog-invitation] for that. (05)
> [PK] I would like to call it ontolog-forum-interest-group ? Any thoughts? (06)
[ppy] I would object. Since this is discussion outside of the Ontolog
Charter (and is therefore *not* ontolog forum), please pick a
different name for your new google email group. (07)
Regards. =ppy
-- (08)
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello Ed and Peter and everyone..
>
> In response to thoughts on this thread, and in order to retain the interest
>and facilitate further free flowing communication, and reduce unwanted noise
>on this forum I would like to offer a solution .
>
> I would like t ot create a google email group in addition to this forum and
>have people continue with the discussion on ontology related discussion that
>may be outside of this forum. And Peter can use this forum strictly to notify
>meeting and follow up information and to those discussions that are strictly
>relevant to this Ontolog forum.
>
> I would like to call it ontolog-forum-interest-group ? Any thoughts?
>
> Pavithra Kenjige (09)
> --- On Mon, 1/25/10, Ed Barkmeyer <edbark@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Ed Barkmeyer <edbark@xxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Tighter control of ontolog forum?
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Monday, January 25, 2010, 1:52 PM
>
> Peter Yim wrote:
>
> > 1. I have, of late, received some complaints again, that the ontolog
> > forum has been overloaded with too many off-topic notes that
> > contribute very little to the subject of ontology and its
> > applications. ...
>
> The word "ontology" confuses, along with several others we commonly
> use. The purpose of this forum is to facilitate interchanges among
> knowledge engineers about knowledge engineering. As we know, that
> touches on mathematical logic, on philosophical issues, on the nature of
> "truth" in science, and on a number of areas in linguistics and
> semantics. It is a broad topic, and the discussions of presumably
> relevant issues in those areas are clearly appropriate.
>
> On the other hand, as Peter himself has said, this is an informal
> discussion group -- a "water cooler conversation" -- and topics of
> interest to several people educated in some of these related fields,
> although mostly or totally irrelevant to knowledge engineering, do come
> up. I don't really find that troubling, as long as it doesn't become a
> dominant characteristic of the forum for two weeks and 100 emails.
>
> > 7. Anyone who can't agree to "self-regulate" or who doesn't think the
> > examples I cited were inappropriate, please email me offline (I could
> > well be mistaken ... but let's not burden the rest of the community.)
> >
>
> I am taking the risk of annoying Peter and others by responding to this
> online. I composed a defense of most of the emails Peter finds fault
> with, but I won't burden you all with it. The upshot is that people
> have to judge the relevance of their contribution, and they can be
> misled by the irrelevance of others. People can only write as well as
> they can in the time they have, and they may write too clumsily or too
> technically for many readers (or some strident ones). And finally,
> people tend to mix messages, which produces a confusion of focus or intent.
>
> That said, there are some authors whose emails I routinely delete
> without reading -- whatever their expertise, its relevance has never
> been visible _to me_ in their written contributions -- and when their
> emails and the replies to them dominate a thread, I delete the thread.
> But that is my choice and my opinion, and I may be missing something.
> This Forum is a jungle and some apparently noxious plants still have
> medicinal value.
>
> This is the guidance I take from Peter's message:
>
> Think before you write. Focus on the issue when you reply. And
> remember that 700 people are going to get this message, and their common
> interest is knowledge engineering, which means that 70% of them have
> neither knowledge nor interest in the esoteric aspects of your
> particular domain of expertise or any other sidebar. They only care
> about the aspects that are relevant to knowledge engineering.
>
> And oh yeah, mea culpa. I have certainly violated this guidance myself
> on multiple occasions, and I apologize to those who have found that
> annoying.
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
> National Institute of Standards & Technology
> Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694
>
> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
> and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (011)
|