On 22/11/2012 10:24 AM, Peter Yim wrote:
> (... changing subject line here, to better reflect the topic being discussed.)
> John and All,
>> [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
> [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.
I am far from an expert but I have been lurking here for years.
It seems that far to much time is spent arguing about 'what the meaning
of "is" is' and getting caught up in long discussions that often have
more to do about different people ability to parse the English language
than actually looking at what role Ontology can play in solving real
world problems. (01)
We had a very vibrant discussion about Watson but we sort of wandered
off since it was not a pure ontology system. (02)
We have never discussed Google's use of reasoning to support all of
their products. (03)
We seem to be stuck discussing the unimportant while the rest of the
smart people are really making machines able to be useful at processing
information into knowledge. (04)
Are there real projects like Watson and Google that either use Ontology
or could benefit from the input from this group? (05)
Does anyone here know how you access an Ontology repository from Watson?
Is it possible? Is it done? Does it follow any standard that makes it
easier to apply Watson to new areas? Similar questions about Google's
projects would be interesting starting points. (06)
If you look at Watson even from the outside, it is clears that issues
like determinism are not that important. A single universal Ontology is
a silly idea when dealing with human knowledge in a multicultural and
multidisciplinary world. Where does ontology fit? Can the parts that use
ontologies be improved. (07)
Imposing a standard on IBM and Google will not work even for W3C.
Getting IBM or Google to use a winning approach to a real world problem
will cause a standard to come into existence. (08)
Happy Thanksgiving to all (09)
> 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.
> 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.
> Thanks & regards. =ppy
> 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.
> ---------- 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>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 5:01 AM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Pat, Duane, Piotr, and Kingsley,
>>> 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.
> [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"
> 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.)
> 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
> - 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
> Regards. =ppy
> Peter Yim
> 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
Artifact Software Inc
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 (012)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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 (013)