+1 on 15926
"It is the theory that decides what can be observed." - Albert Einstein
Toby Considine Chair, OASIS oBIX Technical Committee
U.S. National Inst. of Standards and Tech. Smart Grid Architecture Committee Facilities Technology Office
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC | | Email: Toby.Considine@ unc.edu
Phone: (919)962-9073 http://www.oasis-open.org blog: www.NewDaedalus.com |
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve Ray
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 1:50 PM
To: 'Ontology Summit 2011 discussion'
Subject: [ontology-summit] FW: [ontolog-invitation] Invitation to a brainstorming call for the 2011 Ontology Summit
Forwarded to the list for more general consumption.
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
From: Hans Teijgeler [mailto:hans.teijgeler@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 3:06 AM
To: steve.r.ray@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: FW: [ontolog-invitation] Invitation to a brainstorming call for the 2011 Ontology Summit
Good morning Steve,
I think that you should include ISO 15926.
There is a lot of interest and activity around the globe to implement this standard, using W3C Semantic Web technologies.
Officially it is for integration, sharing, exchange, and hand-over of plant lifecycle information in the process industries (oil refineries, chemical plants, etc), but in fact it is highly generic.
It could easily be used for healthcare, but as easily also for real estate information.
To enable that one has to build or adapt a Reference Library with domain-specific concepts as an extension of the RDL with core classes, as defined in ISO 15926-4.
Please contact Onno Paap of Fluor and/or Robin Benjamins of Bechtel.
Regards,
Hans
___________
Hans Teijgeler
Laanweg 28
1871 BJ Schoorl
072-509 2005
hans.teijgeler@xxxxxxxxxxx
www.15926.info
P Spaar een boom. Druk deze e-mail niet af tenzij het echt nodig is ....
Save a tree. Don't print this e-mail unless it's really necessary....
Sauvez un arbre... Ne pas imprimer ce mail, sauf si cela est strictement nécessaire...
Salvar un árbol. No imprima este e-mail a menos que sea realmente necesario ....
Khusela umthi. Suku shicilela lomyalezo/"e-mail" ngaphandle xa kufuneka ngokwenene....
From: ontolog-invitation-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-invitation-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve Ray
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 1:51
To: ontolog-invitation@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ontolog-invitation] Invitation to a brainstorming call for the 2011 Ontology Summit
Colleagues,
The time has come for us to finalize our plans for the 2011 Ontology Summit. The organizing committee has identified a base theme for the summit, and we would now like to invite you to participate in a conference call on December 16th to brainstorm on refining and finalizing this theme. Developing details (including dial-in information) are available on the session page at:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2010_12_16
Overall theme: Making the case for Ontology
This summit will collect and curate a small number of perspectives and case studies for which we will strive to assemble ROI information (monetary and otherwise) as well as statements of the problem and solution approach, in support of providing solid material to draw upon when making the business case for both the application as well as the R&D investment in Ontology.
Subthemes – Groups of participants making the case in the following domains:
• Healthcare informatics and Biomedical
• Cyberphysical systems
• Cloud (massively parallel) computing
• Traditional engineering applications (civil, mechanical, aerospace…)
• Software engineering, knowledge engineering
• Enterprise and system architecture
• Government applications
• <please suggest any more you feel have some good examples>
While the original premise was for making the case in a return-on-investment basis, the suggestion has been made that this question could also be framed in terms of making the case:
• For research investment
• For using an ontological approach compared to other technical approaches (i.e. on its technical, rather than business, merits)
• To the general public, to increase awareness and understanding
• From a business perspective (the original suggestion)
Possible metrics include:
• Value in terms of productivity, value added, and other benefits
• Financial ROI
• Technical quality
• Risk
Thanks in advance for your interest and involvement. I think we have a promising topic.
- On behalf of the Ontology Summit Organizing Committee
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