Nicola,
(01)
While I agree with your premise and its value (and promote
this aspect), there is still great reluctance to make use
of semantic technologies in general and ontologies and
their development paradigms in particular.
(02)
So, as part of making the business case for the use of
semantic technologies and ontologies I suggest starting
with the general business case of why to use ontologies,
focusing on data models (something familiar and the cause
of many systems and software problems), how ontologies
and semantic technologies can greatly aid in these areas,
then bring out the specific capabilities that provide
such aid (e.g., ontological analysis), then how these
capabilities are already used (to some extent) in
current practices (i.e., why there shouldn't be great
trepidation in their use).
(03)
Thoughts?
(04)
Todd
(05)
From:
Nicola Guarino <guarino@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:
Ontology Summit 2011 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
12/14/2010 07:01 AM
Subject:
Re: [ontology-summit] Invitation to a brainstorming call for the 2011
Ontology Summit
Sent by:
ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(06)
Dear colleagues,
(07)
I also agree very much with John and Matthew concerning
the importance of high quality ontologies, and on their observation that
the quest for high quality data models in software engineering definitely
reflects a sensitivity to important ontological aspects much higher than
what we find in people just focusing on ontology languages.
(08)
In the light of this, I suggest to specify a bit more the
overall theme of our Summit, which in my opinion could be "Making the case
for ontological analysis" instead of "Making the case for ontology". An
alternative could be "Making the case for high-quality ontologies".
(09)
The reason for this proposal should be self-evident, I
believe. Deciding how much effort to put in developing a particular
ontology is a crucial choice, and it is very important to distinguish the
cases where a proper ontological analysis pays off, and is indeed a
crucial aspect of success, from those where a "lightweight" approach is
sufficient.
(010)
Just brainstorming...
(011)
Talk to you soon,
(012)
Nicola
(013)
On 9 Dec 2010, at 16:03, John F. Sowa wrote:
(014)
> Dear Matthew and Peter,
>
> MW:
>> ... my forthcoming book “Developing High Quality Data Models”.
Substitute
>> ontology for data model and the same argument applies. The benefits
come
>> from improving and automating decision making through fit-for-purpose
>> information to support those decisions.
>
> I very strongly agree. Software engineers have been doing ontology
> (avant la lettre, as they say) for a very long time. And much of that
> work has been very good -- sometimes much better than what people are
> doing with so-called ontology languages.
> _________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2011/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
(015)
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
(016)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2011/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (017)
|