Thanks, Peter, for this message and the link that presents the Celtic
Tree. It's a great metaphor, and also a great image. That particular
image should be credited (it appears) to Jen Delyth
http://www.kelticdesigns.com/
who appears happy to allow it to be expressed in non-commercial ways,
but with appropriate credit. Inverting the image appears to have removed
the artist's signature. (01)
Your analysis of that as a metaphor, I think, is spot on. (02)
Cheers
Jack (03)
Peter F Brown wrote:
> Debbie:
>
> Absolutely agree with you: I’m not trying to invent anything new (at
> least, I don’t think so, if this week’s discussions are anything to go
> by) but just give a neologism to something we seem to be struggling
> with: as for example, with the step already taken yesterday in
> recognising the dimensions of ontologies and seeing the need to identify
> ways to collaborate – that’s what I’d call Folksology – both the
> inclusion of folksonomies in the broad family of ontologies, and the
> approach that folksonomies take in enabling collaboration and
> interoperability in a relatively unstructured manner with an easily
> accessible on-ramp.
>
>
>
> To switch metaphor, the Celtic Tree is interesting because what one
> person might think of as a branch out from their work, another may
> consider as a root for their own work… such as we saw yesterday around
> the point on “ontology as a designed artefact”: is it an output or in
> input? It’s both. if we tried to visualise it, I guess it’d look more
> like something from MC Escher ;-)
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> *From:* ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Deborah
> MacPherson
> *Sent:* 25 April 2007 13:52
> *To:* Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
> *Subject:* Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Summit follow up - "Folksology"?
>
>
>
> Thanks for sending this Peter. Really interesting image selections and
> objectives in the slides [3]
> http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/2007-04-25/MArditoKLynch04252007.ppt
>
> If the disciplines working on defining and trying to solve this problem
> are as intertwined as the tree and root metaphor - why force
> distinctions between them? Rather, what purpose does it serve in the end
> to separate different (sorry to use this term...) approaches?
>
> If the purpose of identifying a new discipline is to be able to measure
> or otherwise indicate the levels of translation or formalization needed
> to evaluate, import/export, and integrate ontologies to accomplish what
> the authors Lynch and Ardito describe as "Stalking the Semantic Sweet
> Spot" - is the issue that a hybrid discipline needs its own name within
> the tangled knot?
>
> I think we will be forever merging and dividing the fields that tackle
> this problem over the next hundreds of years. Would it be simpler in the
> long run to cordon off and somehow signify basic levels of translation
> or formalization that need to consistently recognized up and down the
> spectrum regardless of user's special knowledge? Of course each area
> will eventually need a name but it seems like the bigger picture still
> needs to be clearer first.
>
> Debbie
>
> *************************************************
> Deborah L. MacPherson
> Specifier, WDG Architecture PLLC
> Projects Director, Accuracy&Aesthetics
>
> **************************************************
>
> On 4/25/07, *Peter F Brown* <peter@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:peter@xxxxxxxxxx>>
> wrote:
>
> Firstly, many thanks also to Peter Yim, our NIST hosts and everyone on
> the organising committee for a very successful meeting.
>
> My immediate "takeaway" was that we seem to have made a significant
> breakthrough in finding a means of discourse between some very diverse
> disciplines and broadened all of our appreciations of the range and
> depth of work on ontologies.
>
> Further, we need a different mindset to address the problem of capturing
> and encapsulating so-called "tacit knowledge" that goes beyond the
> limitations of the largely "transactional", process-driven approaches
> that are used today [1], even in many so-called "Web 2.0" applications.
>
> For me, one of the most powerful ideas that came out was the need to
> have ontology definition as a permanently evolving and refining process
> rather than a single, static, designed artefact.
>
> Switching domains this morning, to the Semantic Interoperability
> Community of Practice meeting [2] I have been already struck by the
> similarity of the discourse and the problems identified. One
> presentation already this morning [3] has used an image of the "Celtic
> Tree of Life" - with the roots nourishing the branches and vice-versa -
> to depict a major information architecture problem and this image seems
> to be a powerful metaphor of the need to work across all parts of the
> "spectrum" of ontologies from folkonomies up to highly formal ontologies.
>
> Put the two together and maybe you get: Folksology. Could this be the
> new "discipline" that we all ought to master?
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter
>
> [1] see, for example, "Interactive SOA - Towards content-centric
> services",
> http://www.oasis-open.org/events/symposium/2007/slides/Andrew-Townley.odp
> that I referred to at the Summit
> [2] http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoPSpecialConference2_2007_04_25
> [3]
> http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/2007-04-25/MArditoKLynch04252007.ppt
> <http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/2007-04-25/MArditoKLynch04252007.ppt>
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2007/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (05)
|