Hi Everyone,
So far Ontologies are used in automating the business process, and developing systems as entities or objects or data stores.. So IT follks -Enterpise/ System architects at present model them at different level of details.
People who are in other fields are considered as Subject Matter Expertise, who understand how the conceptual aspect of the subject of the ontology that is developed.
For example, an aerospace engineer understands how each part of a plane is related to each other, but may not be a ontology modeler.. An Enterprise / System Architect collect that information form an aerospace engineer and develop the models for the aero-nautical Ontology.
So "anybody" can be anything attitude only causes caose. If people accept iether they are IT and
are at an Enterprise Level or Systems level and others as Subject matter expertise would would contribute to develop the Ontology, everyone would save time, and probably can perform well..
I think people who want to be everything, do everything are just unmanageable people who can not stick to their own profession cause caose!
--- On Sat, 12/19/09, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [REQUIREMENTS] Fwd: Ontologist Aptitude Test?
To: "Ontology Summit 2010 discussion" <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Saturday, December 19, 2009, 5:22 PM
Ravi in relation to what you say below, I was thinking of a simlar question for example, a software engineer should be familiar with all aspects of the software development lifecycle but often one specialises in some aspects more and often has a job that focuses on one of the development phases (say, requirements rather than testing, UML rather than code and so forth) I see increasingly a trend that encourages developing all round skills, but also an increasing trend on hiring specialists for specific tasks wondered how this relates to OE as well PDM
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 11:13 PM, ravi sharma <drravisharma@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John and Azamat
Is it possible for one to become an acceptable ontologist by dwelling in areas such as mapping entities and relationships that collectively address a phenomenon or observation / experiment?
Does one have to necessarily go to the Math or IT Tools training for being called an Ontologist?
This thread has raised many interesting questions regarding who is or who is "passable - certifiable" ontologist and who certifies whom?
In conventional academics there exists a hierarchy, however, and also a process or set of conditions.
The very fact that often academic tracks do not fill a need and that perhaps started ONTOLOG Community (is also a non-degree track evolution of knowledge or awareness of what exists on Ontology - a word still mysterious!).
Thanks.
Ravi
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Amanda Vizedom <amanda.vizedom@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi folks,
Great topic! Thanks to Joel for raising the question and to Pierre for throwing the first answer out there and getting the discussion going.
I've edited the subject line for this post, adding the [REQUIREMENTS] tag. I'm not sure whether that was the intended alignment when the topic was first raised. However, the discussion has evolved in a way that's very much in line with some of my drafted questions for the requirements survey. Adding the tag to at least my post will let me easily find the thread and harvest relevant bits from it later.
Request: as the discussion continues, it would help us all considerably each person would please add such subject-line indicators. Use the [REQUIREMENTS] tag if you agree with this alignment. If you are thinking more along the lines of the content
or delivery of current training, please use the corresponding tags, as described by Peter on the summit's main wiki page; follow this link: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2010#nid25DA to go directly to the relevant section). This will help folks filter their mail. With a little luck and a lot of cooperation, we might be able to have high-volume participation without burying people under so much email they can't possibly find and read what they'd most like to read.
Along similar lines, please also feel free to use the Community_Input wiki pages (also described on the summit page; go here: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2010#nid25CT to ump directly to the relevant section).
Thanks
very much, and pardon the interruption - please keep going!
Best,
Amanda
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 8:20 AM, <jbermejo@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello everyone,
For what it is worth it, here goes my personal experience on how to become
an ontologist.
I could be considered a potential or in-progress ontologist. I am a
Computer Science engineer from Spain who had long working on knowledge
engineering, modelling and so forth.
Some four years ago, for my PhD thesis, I was suggested to build up an
ontology to support the analysis, design and implementation process of a
certain kind of control-based systems. Fine with me, but at the time the
first question was: what is an ontology?
Naively, I looked for some courses, seminars or some kind of training on
the topic. There are not that many, I found just a handful in Spain as
Summer Camps, MSc or PhD seminars which had either taken place time ago or
I could not registered in. No
new courses were offered, or I was unable to
find them both in Europe and the US.
Hence, the training to become an ontologist followed the path of finding
books and references from well-known ontologists. I was lucky enough to
find a couple of just published books on ontological engineering and
ontologies for software engineering.
I have to say that learning from scratch about ontologies, ontological
commitments, languages, tools, linguistic and ontological instantiation,
etc has not been easy.
The real struggle started when I had to develop my own ontology. How do
you do that? I do not have a full answer. Already established
methodologies helped me as a guide. The rest, common sense, prior
knowledge engineering and test and error procedures. As a result, an
ontology suitable enough for our needs, which I hope will grow as our
research evolves. And a PhD dissertation on its way, trying to explain
the
entire ontological engineering process.
Have I become an ontologist? Hard to say. What is the main feature which
has made me an ontologist (if I am one)? My (humble) knowledge on
ontological engineering or the (possibly incomplete) ontology I have
developed?
Possibly, if I have to go through a multiple choice test now on the topic,
I will fail it. Knowing the theory just helps, does not make you an
ontologist. If I do need a language or a tool, I will learn it on the
spot, when I do really need it. No use to remember OWL, RDF, etc by heart.
The important thing for me was to sit down and train my brain to think
different from what I was used to do.
A last comment. Trying to explain to non-ontologist people what you are
doing, has been difficult. I had to start explaining to my own research
team what an ontology is, what I was doing, and most importantly, how it
will help them as down-to-earth
software and hardware engineers. People
are not used to deal with concepts, relations, attributes and axioms. It
is too abstract to grasp.
Regards,
Julita Bermejo-Alonso
>
>> Surely every ontologist should have created an ontology, be able to
explain their modelling choices, compare to what they found out there and
so on as well as to have a vague idea of how it might be used. That could
be a short-thesis.
>
> I agree that every potential ontologist (since we haven't determined if
they really are one yet) should be able to present one or more
ontologies
> and support their design decisions. A very good thesis would also
explain
> the tradeoffs that were made by the decision.
>
>
>> This should allow demonstrating familiarity with relevant tools, but
tools are varied and what matters is the ability to learn them as need
arises.
>
> I'm not convinced that you can test for the ability to learn a tool,
only
> that you have demonstrated proficiency with a specific tool. But that
doesn't mean that being a Certified Cisco Network Engineer is irrelevant
when looking for a supervisor of HP networking equipment, because it
demonstrates that someone has the patience and persistence. I'm
interested in knowing that if somebody says they have the aptitude for
being an ontologist, has anyone put that to a test? What were the
questions?
>
>> I hope, at any rate, there will never be any multiple choice tests in
serious ontology teaching...
>
> I wouldn't go that far, especially during teaching. Multiple choices
tests are perfect when
there is a definitive answer. The simplest I can
think of off the cuff, "Does the sample ontology in part A involve open-
or closed-world assumptions?" (and the word "involve" might not be the
right one)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2009/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2010
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
--
Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma)
313 204 1740 Mobile
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2009/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2010
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
-- Paola Di Maio ************************************************** “Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you
everywhere.” Albert Einstein **************************************************
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
|