ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] [REQUIREMENTS] Fwd: Ontologist Aptitude Test?

To: Ontology Summit 2010 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Joel Bender <jjb5@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:59:13 -0500
Message-id: <E97108C6-4A8F-4E55-8395-2194DB2A58CF@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Ravi,    (01)


Thank you for contributing to this thread.  I would like to be clear that there 
is a distinction between what is necessary and what is sufficient to be an 
ontologist, and while I have some personal ideas of what is necessary, I have 
no idea what would be considered sufficient.    (02)

> 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?    (03)

I would say "yes".  The mapping process would involve exploring the 
similarities and distinctions between entities, and someone that is good at 
teasing them out and codifying them would be an important person to have on a 
development team, and I would accept the "ontologist" label for that person.    (04)

For example, a "business process analyst" would be attuned to recognizing 
workflow patterns for business documents and know how to define them for other 
people on a team.  The analyst may not be as experienced or adapt at developing 
a database schema or writing code, but they would be knowledgeable in what that 
entails and have enough fundamental knowledge to communicate effectively with 
other people on a team that are experts.    (05)

> Does one have to necessarily go to the Math or IT Tools training for being 
>called an Ontologist?    (06)

I would expect someone to have training in logic, at least the basics of set 
theory, graph theory, and first order logic.  I would also expect training and 
some experience with relational algebra, relational databases, and understand 
the benefits and pitfalls of moving a schema through first, second, and third 
normal forms.  The first set of requirements would be for the theoretical side 
of ontology building (knowing the limits of what can be expressed) and the 
practical side (what can be effectively turned into functioning code).    (07)

> This thread has raised many interesting questions regarding who is or who is 
>"passable - certifiable" ontologist and who certifies whom?    (08)

I would rather avoid those sets of questions to keep this thread relatively 
focused.    (09)


Joel    (010)


_________________________________________________________________
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/    (011)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>