Welcome Paola, (01)
I listened in remotely yesterday, and did not attempt to join in the
discussions, largely because I have two presentations to polish for
tomorrow and Thursday in different venues. So, on a purely personal
basis I wish that Interoperability Week didn't fall in the same week
as the OASIS Symposium and the 5th SOA for E-Government Conference,
but aside from that, I have a couple of observations to make. (02)
1. This is only the third Ontology Summit, and there is certainly
room for improvement, but it is still remarkable that it has become
something of an annual event. I hope it can continue to serve the
community and I think that developing a Open Ontology Repository with
a federated, distributed architecture and that strikes a good balance
between the everpresent poles of anarchy at one extreme and
autocracy or oligarchy on the other is the goal. I think autocracy is
highly unlikely but oligarchy, though also unlikely, is possible. I
think that a meritocracy is what the majority of us would like,
though even that form of governance has its drawbacks. (03)
But, that's the point. Whatever we collectively decide to do is going
to have its pros and cons, and our main task is to achieve the best
consensus we can manage between the poles of complete restriction and
complete freedom. (04)
2. This particular event is only the culmination of an ongoing
process that has been underway for a little more than two months, and
needs to be seen as that, so the apparent lack of allowance for more
thorough participation in this event needs to be understood in full
context. That doesn't mean that there isn't a need for evolving a
more inclusive process, or adding such processes. (05)
I think the key to our success in advancing the adoption and further
refinement of ontological thought, tools and of ontologies in
pragmatic use lies in developing the Open Ontology Repository. (06)
Cheers,
Rex (07)
At 4:46 PM +0700 4/29/08, paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>Good morning folks,
>first, nice to meet you all, (hay, now I know who you are!)
>I am grateful for this opportunity and for the interesting
>discussions, and thanks
>to all who are working to pull it together
>
>A couple of thoughts on the organization of the summit
>
>Many participants, including myself, feel that the way the content of
>the summit has been organized is a bit restrictive
>and constrained, and people are finding it very difficult to make
>contributions. 'Openness' is a big subject that needs to be tackled
>with adeaquately open processes.
>
> For example, the structure of the agenda has been constructed a
>priori, precluding the participant to express a preference on their
>priorities, and whenever an interesting topic comes up that obviously
>needs to be unpacked and extricated, the discussion moves on to the
>next topic because the agenda was set up like that.
>
>There are many interesting people in the room that have something to
>say about each issue, and possibly many more issues that they would
>like to be brought up, and I think the summit should be organised to
>accommodate for such a requirement
>
>In other conferences we are trying speed talking, that is each person
>who has a contribution to make on a certain topic is given
>one, two or three minutes to say what they've got to say about it,
>strictly on a rotation basis, without any exclusion, and a new
>rotation starts each time a new topic starts. for example, if we have
>50 people in the room, each should be given one minute to air their
>views
>on a particular topic/ This may resctrict somehow the number of topics
>that are dealth with in each session, say maximum two topics in a
>morning, but it ensures that the topic is dealt with in depth, and
>comprehensively. In my experience, not all of the participation have
>something to say anyway, so in aroom of 60 people with good
>participation you can expect twenty or thirty intervetions at the most
>
>Needless to say that in these new 'participatory' models, the
>priority of topics to be discussed are selected by the meeting
>participants, and not by the organizers,
>
>The above is just an example, I hope there are ways that we can
>explore new and more suitable formats to help us make the most
>of this great opportunity
>
>:Look forward to the second day
>see ya later
>cheers
>
>
>--
>Paola Di Maio
>School of IT
>www.mfu.ac.th
>*********************************************
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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/OntologySummit2008/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008
>Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (08)
--
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670 (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2008/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (010)
|