Hi Ali,
A tool like this is a great way to demonstrate an ontology's applicability. (01)
Count me in. (02)
On 27 July 2011 19:56, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Sounds great, Ali!
>
>> [AH] (micro-tears on ankle ligaments means no camping+cottaging for a few
>weeks! :D ).
>
> [ppy] get well soon, Ali!
>
>
> In addition to your thoughts, I want to bring up the following for you
> and everyone's consideration ...
>
> 1. There is an effort (behind the scene) that is working on
> "migrating and enhancing" the OntologWiki content -- transforming that
> from its current "purple wiki" platform to a "purple semantic
> mediawiki (PSMW)" platform.
>
> 2. presumably one could be a bit more fancy with the "look and feel"
> on that new platform as well. Do check out:
>
>http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Ontology_Design_Patterns_._org_%28ODP%29
> and
>http://smwforum.ontoprise.com/smwforum/index.php/HaloExtension_Product_Information
> for possibilities (on how the site may be implemented) ... both of
> these sites are build on the Semantic MediaWiki platform.
>
> 3. you (and others who are interested to support this initiative you
> are brining up) might consider possible synergies, through
> collaborating with those who are working on the PSMW "migration and
> enhancement" now (these people are meeting Wednesday evenings every
> week - I can put you in touch with them.)
>
>
> Thanks & regards. =ppy
> --
>
>
> ---------- original message ----------
> From: Ali Hashemi <ali@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 7:22 AM
> Subject: Re: Making the Ontology Summit content Accessible
> To: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>, "[ontolog-forum]"
> <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Michael F Uschold
> <uschold@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> Hi Peter and all,
>
> After a long delay, I am finally capable of committing some time and
> energy on this effort (micro-tears on ankle ligaments means no
> camping+cottaging for a few weeks! :D ).
>
>
> To briefly recap what's written below.
>
> Ontology Summit 2011 came and went, and was by many measures a
> success. Many wonderful conversations were stimulated and captured on
> ontolog wiki and the Communique with its supporting documentation
> provides a valuable resource to those who wish to make the case for
> ontology. However, it was noticed by many that the content is not as
> accessible to a broad audience as we'd like. Moreover, I think it was
> also noticed that we could derive additional value from the summit by
> creating a distinct, dedicated website for the work that was developed
> in the summit.
>
> As Michael Uschold and others noted, the way that content is presented
> on the ontolog wiki is well geared for collaboration, editing and
> creating, but not great for a broader audience. To address this issue,
> I think a proposal is to have the creation of a Summit Website to be
> an explicit goal of each summit from here on in.
>
> To put our efforts where our mouths are, I think we can begin by
> creating a site for the Making the Case. Specifically, I think we can
> achieve three objectives in so doing:
>
> 1. Present our work in engaging, custom-way way to a broad audience
>
> 2. Actually use ontology to do so
>
> 2.1 Demonstrate the use of an expressive, technology agnostic,
> though lightweight ontology in the conceptualization of our problem
> domain
>
> 2.2 Demonstrate the mapping of the expressive ontology to a
> specific technology implementation that fits the needs of the problem
> domain
>
> Where (2.1) and (2.2) provide two additional case examples of ontology
> in action.
>
>
> To wit, in making the case, we considered:
>
> o Target audiences
> o Values and benefits
> o Case studies
> o Metrics
>
> these each comprised separate tracks, yet any person who wants to use
> the output of the summit will likely be looking for a specific
> audience, where that audience values a subset of the metrics and a
> subset of the benefits, where in addition, only a subset of the case
> studies actually demonstrate these benefits. So by modeling how the
> output of the summit fits into the work ecology of our potential
> audience, we can structure our content in such a way to generate
> dynamic, custom views to the website users. Moreover, if this summit
> continues to collect more case studies, we would be able to
> organically grow the site as we add content with minimal costs.
> All-in-all, a good demonstration of what we're preaching about
> ontology, applied to itself - no?
>
> I think (2.1) and (2.2) above demonstrate two uses of ontologies. The
> first (2.1) captures ontology in a technology agnostic way in an
> expressive language. I would propose using Common Logic to capture the
> relationship among the various tracks and our users. The second
> ontology use (2.2) corresponds to using the tools that are available
> now -- this involves mapping elements of minimally-defined CL theory
> to RDF/XML(?) statements that annotate our content + (stored) SPARQL
> queries that are used to generate the views according to user input.
> The idea is that the user won't be explicitly writing SPARQL queries,
> but rather, a nice, clean interface that elicits their specific needs
> as it pertains to making the case, would execute the queries and
> generate a dynamic, custom-tailored page.
>
>
> What do people think? Any feedback?
>
> And more importantly, are there people who would be willing to donate
> some time to realize this effort? I know Michael U. had wanted to
> refine our metrics and specifically the benefits that each use case
> purported to demonstrate. What we need for this effort are:
>
> o Refined metrics for the metric tracks
> o Standardized benefits in terms of the metrics for each of the use cases
> o Linking the target audiences to types of benefits
> o Minimally specified CL modules that represent the relations between
> the various tracks
> o A mapping of fragments of the CL modules to RDF annotations and
> SPARQL queries
> o An actual website that implements SPARQL and RDF/XML
>
> Any volunteers for any of these tasks? Also, please note that CL, RDF
> and SPARQL are just initial proposals to get the ball rolling, if
> others feel that something else is more appropriate, please speak up.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Ali
>
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Great, Ali! ... Forwarding this thread to the Ontolog community now ...
>>
>> ALL: Let's continue the conversation here (on the [ontolog-forum] list).
>>
>> Thanks & regards. =ppy
>> --
>
>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Ali SH <asaegyn+out@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Wed, May 25, 2011 at 5:26 AM
>> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Making the Summit Accessible
>> To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>> Yes, it seems like a good idea to shift the conversation over to the
>> regular forum.
>> Unfortunately, I will be without electronic communication until June
>> 6, so I won't be able to contribute until then.
>> I will catch up then.
>> Best,
>> Ali
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> (•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,.,
>
>
>> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear Ali and All,
>> >
>> >
>> > Thank you, Ali ... this is great! ... I concur and encourage everyone
>> > interested to actively engage in this conversation.
>> >
>> > 1. I agree with you, and am in favor of having *one website* as the
>> > home to all summit "presentations" year-after-year. (I believe that
>> > academic conferences have their annual conferences distributed in
>> > different site-locations are a result of how "ownerships" get passed
>> > from institution to institution, and not a function of optimal
>> > design.)
>> >
>> > 2. note that the Ontolog-CWE (collaborative work environment)
>> > actually have four key components in the infrastructure (a
>> > portal/website space, a wiki, an archived mailing list and a webdav
>> > server ... representing four somewhat orthogonal workspaces - a
>> > presentation space, a collaborative authoring and synchronization
>> > workspace, a conversation space, and a shared-file repository.) With
>> > your effort here, looks like we can finally take advantage of the
>> > portal/website infrastructure that has been sitting around all these
>> > years.
>> >
>> > 3. since OntologySummit2011 is officially over, and this exercise
>> > that you are leading is actually using OntologySummit2011 as a case to
>> > develop something that extends beyond this year's Summit and is
>> > important to the entire ontology community, you might consider moving
>> > the conversation to the [ontolog-forum] list, where the reach is wider
>> > (roughly twice the number of subscribers, and more international
>> > participation.)
>> >
>> > 4. to augment this threaded discussion, please consider picking one
>> > (or even several) time slots to run real-time focused discussion
>> > and/or workshop(s) on this effort, making use of, say, the regular
>> > Ontolog Thursday event time slot and virtual panel discussion session
>> > format, as you feel appropriate. Reserve any date that is marked
>> > "open" on our Ontolog master event calendar - see:
>> > http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?MeetingsCalls (email me if I
>> > can be of help to facilitate the organization of such event(s).)
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks & regards. =ppy
>> > --
>
>
>> > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Ali Hashemi <ali@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > beyond the conclusion of the face-to-face meetings.
>> > > As a follow up to yesterday's conference call
>> > > (http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_05_19), I
>think
>> > > we agreed on the need for developing something more than a Communique. We
>> > > need to present the culmination of the summit (Communique + Tracks + Wiki
>> > > content) in a more effective manner.
>> > >
>> > > Specifically, if we're considering putting the creation of a website as
>an
>> > > additional explicit goal of the outcome of future summits, then I think
>we
>> > > have one of two choices:
>> > >
>> > > One central site that contains each year
>> > > One site for each year (i.e. how academic conferences usually collect
>> > > material)
>> > >
>> > > I think the first one makes more sense, as it provides a more unified
>view
>> > > of the progress of ontology and the summits. My personal experience with
>> > > conference websites (say for IJCAI) is that each year differs highly in
>> > > quality, they are not presented in a consistent way, and are generally a
>> > > frustrating way to keep track of conferences over a long period of time.
>> > > Beyond the above consideration, I would suggest that the purpose of each
>> > > site should be to support the theme of the summit and mediate the
>relation
>> > > to resources developed over the course of the summit in a more accessible
>> > > manner.
>> > > I'll use the 2011 Making the Case Summit to illustrate what I mean by the
>> > > above statement.
>> > > In this case, we identified a number of tracks tackling different
>aspects of
>> > > one problem -- how to construct a compelling, persuasive argument re
>> > > ontologies. In the course of this process, we collected, developed and
>are
>> > > ultimately providing the material for ontology evangelists to make actual
>> > > cases. Not only that, but the resources we provide include identifying a
>set
>> > > of target audiences and broad strategies that evangelists might actually
>> > > employ.
>> > > !!
>> > > The fact that an ontology evangelist would use the output of the summit
>to
>> > > make a case should drive our organization and access to the collected and
>> > > developed material. That is how a site would support the theme of this
>> > > year's summit.
>> > > To briefly recap,
>> > >
>> > > We identified a number of different audiences
>> > >
>> > > who care about a number of different metrics
>> > >
>> > > We identified a set of benefits that ontology can provide
>> > >
>> > > with corersponding metrics
>> > >
>> > > We solicited and collected a number of use cases
>> > >
>> > > where presumably, ontology actually delivered those benefits
>> > > and it is expressible via the metrics.
>> > >
>> > > Remembering why an evangelist would be accessing the communique in the
>first
>> > > place, this suggests a natural layout... Just to be explicit, an ontology
>> > > evangelist wants to persuade at least the audiences we identified
>(+perhaps
>> > > others that we missed) using at least the resources we provided. So given
>> > > their audience, they’re interested in only a subset of the benefits,
>metrics
>> > > and use cases at any one time. Moreover it would be useful for them to
>see
>> > > which use cases and value metrics apply to which audience member.
>> > > So... We should capture these relations in our content, and provide views
>> > > into the summit web site according to the evangelist's target audience.
>> > >
>> > > (Evangelist (wants_to) convince TargetAudience)
>> > > (TargetAudiences value Benefits)
>> > > (TargetAudiences respond_to Metrics)
>> > > (Metrics measure Benefits)
>> > > (UseCases deliver Benefits)
>> > >
>> > > The ValueMetrics Synthesis (
>> > >
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_ValueMetrics_Synthesis
>> > > ) already largely captures the mapping between the UseCases and both
>> > > Benefits and Metrics.
>> > > As Michael Uschold noted in today’s meeting, we should be able to
>develop an
>> > > ontology for the usage framework. I believe it is also possible to
>connect
>> > > that with the value metrics, and finally connect that to the target
>audience
>> > > to create a tight loop to drive the development of our web effort.
>> > > What we need to do is make these relations a bit more formal (and perhaps
>> > > machine readable)! And also, clearly articulate which Benefits and which
>> > > ValueMetrics correspond to which TargetAudience. Machine readable
>> > > representations are particularly desirably if we want to grow the usage
>> > > example collection and provide dynamic views of our resources to the
>users.
>> > > With such a structure in place, we can then develop a site that better
>> > > corresponds to evangelist needs. Though of course, it would also be
>useful
>> > > to have a presentation scheme that presents the story of the evolution of
>> > > the summit as well.
>> > > Are there any volunteers? Might someone in the ValueSynthesis track be
>able
>> > > to extract the relevant bits of the matrix in some formalism? Can we
>agree
>> > > on a vocabulary for audience, benefits, metrics and use case types in a
>> > > machine readable way? <-- This is already informally done in the
>> > > communique+tracks to some degree. The results of this analysis will at
>the
>> > > very least drive the layout of the pages+views, and perhaps facilitate
>the
>> > > technology implementation for the delivery of "nuggets" of content that
>> > > we'll be hosting. We can discuss what a "nugget" of content means for
>this
>> > > summit...
>> > > Best,
>> > > Ali
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > (•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,.,
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (03)
--
Bart Gajderowicz, MSc.
Ryerson University
http://www.scs.ryerson.ca/~bgajdero (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|