(... changing subject line here, to better reflect the topic being discussed.) (01)
John and All, (02)
> [JFS] I'm *not* proposing a new standard. We already have lots of
> standards. What I am proposing is that we ask some fundamental
> questions. The basic question is "Why aren't practitioners using
> ontologies?" (03)
[ppy] John, I totally agree with you that this is among one of the
most important questions, and is definitely something we should be
(and have been) collectively trying to answer, until Ontology is able
to make the impact that each of us believes it should. (04)
I made the earlier comment that "we don't do standards here" more to
clear up a confusion that some might think we do (or think we should)
develop standards, given who we have that have been active in the
community. ... Personally, I believe in the efficacy of standards too,
myself, and will, therefore, be happy to support related activities
that would help us gain adoption for Ontology and semantic
technology into international standardization efforts. (05)
I should also take this opportunity to finish a sentence that got
started in my last post. In my earlier remark that W3C was
conspicuously missing from the roster of our collaborators in the
joint "OntologyBasedStandards" Initiative ... I meant to say that I
hope to see them among the collaborators too, and solicit help from
anyone here who can help get W3C leadership's attention on this
initiative and put me in touch. (06)
Thanks & regards. =ppy
-- (07)
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 6:01 AM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/21/2012 12:05 PM, Peter Yim wrote:
>> just so we are clear ... ONTOLOG (a.k.a. Ontolog Forum)
>> is a community of practice...
>>
>> Therefore, we don't do standards here
>
> I'm *not* proposing a new standard. We already have lots of standards.
> What I am proposing is that we ask some fundamental questions. The
> basic question is "Why aren't practitioners using ontologies?"
>
> The WWW grew very rapidly without any standards. Tim B-L put together
> some good ideas in a very fruitful combination, and the growth curve
> for the WWW was exponential. There was no need to promote it --
> people jumped on the bandwagon as soon as they saw it.
>
> Instead of promoting anything or standardizing anything, I believe
> we should be asking some soul-searching questions:
>
> 1. Why aren't mainstream IT and web sites using ontologies?
>
> 2. Google, Microsoft, IBM, and other major corporations are
> well aware of the SW tools, but they don't use them. Why?
>
> 3. What is missing from our tools, techniques, and logics?
>
> 4. What methods work in mainstream development?
>
> 5. Instead of telling mainstream developers to adopt our methods,
> perhaps we should adapt our methods to theirs. But how?
>
> In addition to the questions, we should also discuss ideas about
> new directions and approaches that might lead to answers.
>
> John
>
> _________________________________________________________________ (08)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Webby objects
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (09)
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 5:01 AM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Pat, Duane, Piotr, and Kingsley,
>
>...[snip]...
>
> DN
>> One thought that crossed my mind was to consider making this forum more of
>> a group with a voice within the standards world. This would take a bit of
>> work but is possible. Peter and I would have to work out the IP policy
>> (with the help of anyone with a law degree) in more detail WRT FOSS
>> licenses. My personal thoughts are that there is sufficient work being
>> done here to be recognized as an SDO. This would require anyone talking
>> about software in the context of standards to adhere to an IPR policy that
>> is acceptable to other orgs.
>
> [JFS] That is a possibility. Peter has been very supportive in providing the
> web site, conference calls, and email lists. This might be a good topic
> for the annual events that Peter organizes at NIST every April. (010)
[ppy] just so we are clear ... ONTOLOG (a.k.a. Ontolog Forum) is a
community of practice (see:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CommunityofPractice ) in the
sense John Seely Brown describes it. We are only supposed to be having
good "drinking fountain conversations" (011)
Therefore, we don't do standards here -- we will, of course, spin off
a good potential standard project and have that done in a proper SDO
venue (as in the case of the UoM Ontology Standards discussion that
later morphed into the OASIS QUOMOS TC - ref.
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard - which,
by the way, Pat Hayes and I are planning to revive some time soon.) (012)
That said, we do advocate the adoption of Ontology and semantic
technology into mainstream applications and international standards;
and we do so by collaborating with other communities to move that
agenda forward. The recent joint "OntologyBasedStandards" Initiative
is trying to do exactly what's being discussed now (although, W3C is
conspicuously missing from the roster of our collaborators in this
case.)
- See: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologyBasedStandards
... and for those who missed the Oct-25 Launch and the Nov-8 events,
it's definitely worth catching up from the proceedings at:
-- http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2012_10_25 and
-- http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2012_11_08 (013)
Regards. =ppy (014)
Peter Yim
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?PeterYim
-- (015)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (016)
|