Perhaps we should focus on improving relevant Wikipedia pages (and adding any that we find missing. That's likely to have broader impact than creating a new standalone resource.
Mike
Sent from my iPhone One of the possibilities is that this becomes the topic for the Ontology Summit. I am thinking that we might develop a framework of topics that we might then go on to fill in pieces over time One thing I am certain of is that it will only have value if it is organized and managed. I have seen several attempts at self organization, and not yet seen something that works. So we will need gardeners and librarians or it will decay with remarkable rapidity. Regards Matthew West Information Junction Mobile: +44 750 3385279 Skype: dr.matthew.west matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/ https://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 6632177. Registered office: 8 Ennismore Close, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire, SG6 2SU. From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jack Park
Sent: 14 October 2014 17:42
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] How should we design a good wiki? [was Marvin Minsky...] This, I think, is an important conversation, though it's not necessarily one that will lend itself to a linear email list. I say that because this specific conversation is just as likely to raise concerns about repetition, low signal-to-noise ratio, and so forth as have been raised before. But, I do think there are ready partial solutions to the specific, short-term (think: swat team) needs of this conversation since it already has an attractor basin: a topic about an improved platform for these deliberations. Given an attractor basin, that is, a focus object (as opposed to the entire universe of ontology-related discourse) it should be possible to make use of a structured conversation platform such as http://debategraph.org/ to co-create first a deep understanding of every participant's views of the use cases and scenarios, from which can spring conversations about solution designs and later implementations. In relation to "smart agents" to analyze the existing records, that's a profoundly tall order given that existing records are not structured in the same sense that journal papers are. But, it's not unreasonable to harvest those records in such a way that a faq could grow, as well as a topic map of all the named entities and their relations. Even conceptual graphs of processes, world views, and so forth. There are now beginning to exist open source "Watson-like" platforms which might be able to contribute to that. On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Patrick Cassidy <pat@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: I agree generally with John's points, and think that a Wiki-like
presentation would be a good idea. I would favor a format with, in
addition to a FAQ-like Q&A section, a section where, for issues not
generally agreed on, there are two columns, having (where appropriate)
different views on opposite sides, closely aligned so as to present the
alternative views side-by-side on a single page. Do we have a Wiki that
could be arranged like that?
I would also favor that it be a closed wiki, requiring either membership in
the Ontolog forum or specific authorization from a moderator to add or
change items. (trolls are everywhere)
This would hopefully go a long way toward reducing the repetition in the
current discussion format.
Pat
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA Inc.
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
1-908-561-3416
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
>Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 10:20 AM
>To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [ontolog-forum] How should we design a good wiki? [was Marvin
>Minsky...]
>
>I changed the subject line in response to the following:
>
>Michael B
>> if the same people debate the same problems over and over, only
>> newcomers really profit from that.
>>
>> A FAQ or a collections of documents / former discussions would be a
>> good idea but is not so intriguing to newcomers as an ongoing
>> discussion.
>
>Those are good points, but what should we do?
>
>The Ontolog archives contain the former discussions, but it's hard to find
old
>threads that are relevant to new discussions.
>And they seldom, if ever match new questions exactly.
>
>A FAQ about the issues in Ontolog Forum would be as complex as a wiki
>devoted to ontology and related issues in AI, KR, knowledge acquisition,
>software development, etc.
>
>Ontolog Forum has a blog, but it's not as active as the forum.
>And a blog has the same issues of finding relevant topics as the archive.
>
>As a test case, consider the following question. How could a front-end to
an
>archive, blog, or wiki generate or lead to anything useful?
>
>MB
>> I have read a good part of the paper and now wonder how Minsky's
>> frames are different from the much loved and despised "primitives"
>> in this forum.
>
>Pat C
>> There is no relationship whatever. Frames are a syntax, and
>> primitives are intended to capture the semantics ("meaning") of terms
>> in a logical, computational form. The meanings can be expressed in
>> any sufficiently expressive syntax.
>
>That's a good answer, but I'd add a qualification: They're different, but
>complementary. More information would be needed to explain how.
>
>What kind of automated or semi-automated tool(s) could generate, find, or
>lead to anything similar? Or better? Or sufficiently informative to
enable
>somebody to understand the relationships?
>
>For the record, I typed the following words to Google:
>
> Minsky's frames primitives ontolog
>
>The first hit was a slide presentation by Aldo Gangemi:
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/2014-02-
>06_OntologySummit2014_Overcoming-Ontology-Engineering-Bottlenecks-
>1/OntologySummit2014_Overcoming-Ontology-Engineering-bottlenecks-w-
>Knowledge-Patterns--AldoGangemi_20140206.pdf
>
>Those slides are relevant, but they don't answer the question.
>(By the way, the repetitious verbiage in the URL is not helpful.)
>
>Other hits lead to all sorts of related readings. Anyone who spent hours
>reading them might learn a lot, but not get an answer to the original
>question.
>
>Could any wiki supported by automated tools answer such questions?
>How should we design a wiki for ontology and related topics?
>
>John
>
>__________________________________________________________
>_______
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
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
|