I agree with Steve on this
BS (01)
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Steve Ray <steve.r.ray@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I was relieved to see your message, Todd. My strong sense is that we are not
>yet to the point where the general commercial user accepts the use of
>ontologies of any kind. Therefore, we need to get past that basic hurdle
>before we start trying to make the case for a more sophisticated treatment. We
>need strong examples, quantified in concrete terms.
> (Just my opinion, of course)
>
> - Steve
>
> Steven R. Ray, Ph.D.
> Distinguished Research Fellow
> Carnegie Mellon University
> NASA Research Park
> Building 23 (MS 23-11)
> P.O. Box 1
> Moffett Field, CA 94305-0001
> Email: steve.r.ray@xxxxxxxxxx
> Phone: (650) 587-3780
> Cell: (202) 316-6481
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Todd J Schneider
> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 7:20 AM
> To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion
> Cc: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion; ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Invitation to a brainstorming call for the
>2011 Ontology Summit
>
> Nicola,
>
> 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.
>
> 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).
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Todd
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> 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.
>
> 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".
>
> 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.
>
> Just brainstorming...
>
> Talk to you soon,
>
> Nicola
>
> On 9 Dec 2010, at 16:03, John F. Sowa wrote:
>
>> 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
>
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/
> (02)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (03)
|