Ali and Bart, (01)
Great analyses. I totally agree with your assessment and would
support moving ahead with your approach. (02)
> To this end, we actually took a close look at the various available
> extensions to SemanticMediaWiki, and our main issue was the lack of
> versatility when it comes to rendering the pages. (03)
[ppy] as for whether PSMW is the right tool to use, I have 3 comments: (04)
(i) we can find out more about this when you join us at the psmw meeting(s). (05)
(ii) there are folks who are adept MW/SMW extension developers on the
PSMW team; therefore, if what's currently available on SMW doesn't
exactly fit your purpose now, it doesn't mean it can't or won't be (if
you have a solid case for what you need is worth implementing into
PSMW.) (06)
(iii) I suspect we will need to be supporting multi-modal inputs,
from the site developers, as well as (some portion of) the users too.
So, we are not talking about either-or, but more like, which suite of
tools will come into play. (07)
... that said, being able to deliver something in short order, and
kicking that into a "continuous improvement" mode, could be among the
criteria that helps us decide. (08)
>> [ppy] I would recommend using OOR (ref.
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository )
>
> [AH] If the PSWM or Ontolog is already deploying such a thing, then we don't
> need a distinct space. (09)
[ppy] great! ... Just to clarify, OOR is a separate and distinct
initiative (from Ontolog or PSMW) despite the fact that there are some
overlap in the participants. (010)
Thanks & regards. =ppy
-- (011)
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Ali Hashemi <ali@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> [ppy] (ref.
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2011-07/msg00184.html#nid05
>> ) I assume you meant "purple semantic media wiki (PSMW)," as we are
>> actually working on moving out of "purple wiki." (You probably meant
>> that already, I just wanted to make sure.)
>
> Yes, I meant PSMW. (012)
>> > [AH] Do you think a wiki is the best fit for a final website ...
>>
>> [ppy] <snip> (ii) more modern
>> wiki platforms ("psmw" can be considered among them) are so versatile
>> that one can support a lot of fancy graphics and GUI's (to the extent
>> that most people may not even realize that some websites are built on
>> wiki platforms) ... as such, the decision should not be made on
>> whether or not the platform is labeled as a "wiki," but rather, on
>> what functionalities and features are needed in your case, and what
>> platform would most easily provide for them. (013)
> Absolutely agree. My main objection to a wiki was exactly the lack of that
> versatility that you mention is now available. Going to a site that has the
> look and feel of a wiki is good for some things, but wholly inappropriate
> for many others. Bart and I in our initial pass, identified 4 broad classes
> of users.
> Again, keeping in mind (and assuming) that the function of the website is to
> support the content and end result of each summit, the functionality that
> arose for each class of user were: (014)
> General browser - "What was the summit about?"
> Evangelists - Someone wanting to make the case - "How can I make the case to
> my specific audience?"
> Decision Makers - Someone looking for ontology uses - "Which efforts match
> my current situation?"
> Contributors - "I have an experience that fits this summit" (015)
> I think the Contributor class corresponds to the classic wiki use-case, the
> other 3 classes fall more into the consumer use-case. (016)
>> [ppy] this is great! ... except for the word "expressive," I bet PSMW
>> would be a good candidate to support the work. As for "expressive"
>> (especially "expressive ontology"), PSMW may possibly be challenged;
>> we need to talk things through together, and probably work something
>> out together. I am sure to get to where you want (regardless of the
>> platform you end up choosing), some code have yet to be developed, and
>> that's where some of the gaps may be bridged. (017)
> Good point, but there's a reason for choosing an expressive ontology. We do
> not foresee the more expressive version as one that would necessarily be
> computed upon. We are actually hoping to use this project as a way to
> demonstrate two types of ontology use - that of ontology for design, and
> ontology for real-time search / usability. To that end, we're thinking of
> deploying two distinct ontology artifacts. One proposal we're considering
> for how to move forward and the implementation architecture. (018)
> Develop an expressive, though under-specified ontology. This captures in a
> technology independent way, what we're trying to solve / represent.
> (candidate language - Common Logic)
> Tag our content using the vocabulary we've developed (candidate language,
> RDFa or some other microformat)
> Determine the types of inferences and views we want to support.
> Create and store queries that correspond to these inferences using our RDFa
> tagging. (candidate query languages, SPARQL or if we want to go the old
> school route, perl scripts?)
> Develop a set of CSS's that provide the visual context and style information
> for how our content is displayed. (019)
> So there are a number of interesting uses of ontology that come out of this.
> The ideas that have driven the above approach include: (020)
> It is easier to conduct semantic mappings on expressive ontologies
> Demonstrate how ontology driven design can work with a practical (if simple)
> example.
> Demonstrate how an expressive, referent ontology can provide as a sort of
> "contract store", whereby various web services can align or rather honour
> the semantics of a referent ontology in their functionality -- this is
> entirely in alignment with Service Oriented Architectures which are coming
> to dominate web application deployments. (021)
> I personally think that Ontology Driven Software / Web Development is an
> area that is all too often overlooked (notwithstanding the excellent
> conference on that very topic).
> The link between SOA and ontology is also not well highlighted, which this
> project could help clarify (022)
> Demonstrate an effective use of query-rewriting to match the technology
> choice of du jour.
> Demonstrate how the Linked Open Data world can be enriched and enhanced by
> linking the deployed microformats or triples to an actual, expressive
> ontology. (023)
> To this end, we actually took a close look at the various available
> extensions to SemanticMediaWiki, and our main issue was the lack of
> versatility when it comes to rendering the pages. (024)
>> > [AH] Would we be able to store say a triple-store on ontolog?
>>
>> [ppy] I would recommend using OOR (ref.
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository ) (025)
> If the PSWM or Ontolog is already deploying such a thing, then we don't need
> a distinct space.
> The idea however, is to annotate the content of the Summit - wherever it is
> stored - with a microformat vocabulary derived from the more expressive
> referent ontology. Queries will be rewritten according to common inferences
> based on the referent ontology, and deployed in the website. The main
> functionality we desire, is to render the results according to our own CSS's
> and not be tied to the CSS's that come with a particular SMW implementation.
> If this freedom is available, and if PSMW is being deployed anyway, then it
> does not make sense to have a distinct annotated store.
> Of course, aside from Bart and yourself (and some preliminary discussions at
> the Summit debriefing meeting a few months back), precious little feedback
> has trickled in. So all this could be subject to change if anyone else has a
> better idea or vision for the architecture or execution.
> Best,
> Ali (026)
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Ali Hashemi <ali@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Dear Peter and Bart,
>> > Sorry for the delayed response.I would definitely be interested in the
>> > work
>> > on the purple wiki's, though I don't have much time to commit to that.
>> > In the meantime, Bart G. and I have started work on this idea. Do you
>> > think
>> > a wiki is the best fit for a final website associated with each year's
>> > summit? Are people on board with adding an additional, explicit
>> > deliverable
>> > from each summit (i.e. a website that summarizes and provides an easy,
>> > more
>> > general audience view into the work)?
>> > For this current project, we were interested in using an expressive
>> > ontology
>> > to capture a technology agnostic representation of the domain, and then
>> > do a
>> > sort of "ontology-driven website design", deploying suitable, more
>> > optimized
>> > semantic technologies for the actual website functionality.
>> > Would we be able to store say a triple-store on ontolog? We're a bit
>> > unclear
>> > how the web infrastructure would work on this.
>> > Best,
>> > Ali (027)
>> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 7:56 PM, 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
>> >> -- (028)
>> >> ---------- 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 (029)
>> >> 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
>> >> > -- (030)
>> >> > ---------- 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
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > (•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,., (031)
>> >> > 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
>> >> > > -- (032)
>> >> > > 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 corresponding 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
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > --
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > (•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,., (033)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (034)
|