Thank you all ... Todd and Ali, especially, for bringing the
discussion back into focus. (01)
Along those lines I have a few thoughts to share, which might serve as well ... (02)
* I encourage everyone (especially those who weren't there) to revisit
past Ontology Summit proceedings, and especially the communiques that
came out each year (in the past 5 years).
see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit (03)
* by Ontology, we mean the entire ontology spectrum (collectively) ...
therefore, specify the segment you are addressing, please
** see: OntologySummit2007 proceedings and the communique, when
"Ontology, Taxonomy, Folksonomy: Understanding the Distinctions" was
addressed by the Summit community, and we actually took great length
to answer "What is An Ontology" as far as this community is concerned
** http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007 (04)
* we are here to MAKE the Case for Ontology as a whole, kindly stay
positive... consider yourself an ambassador (salesman?) for the Ontology
community to the rest of the world (and your potential sponsors,
adopters, users) ... please! (05)
* stay in focus ... conversation relevant to Ontology, but not
specific on this year's theme should be relegated to other forums
(like [ontolog-forum], ... etc.) (06)
* open IPR policy regarding all summit content (or technology) applies
** http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid32
** don't share your trade secrets here (and don't label them as such!) (07)
Talk to some you you shortly at the (pre-launch) brainstorm session
see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2010_12_16 (08)
Best regards. =ppy
-- (09)
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Jack Ring <jring7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Applauding Ali's points and adding ---
> Commercial and Industrial:
> Business leaders prefer no big (risky) leaps. If we can show a smooth,
> minimum breakage path from data base schema to taxonomy to concept maps to
> localized ontologies to formal enterprise ontology they are more likely to
> enter the Awareness, Appreciation and Acceptance flow.
> Hot spots are a) the nomenclature gaps between product development (as
> designed), manufacturing (tools, jigs and fixtures an as built) and
> marketing (as legally promised).
> b) the corporate Policy and Instruction manual (about as ambiguous as your
> IRS instructions) especially vs. c) the content of the business rules
> embedded in the IT systems.
> c) organizational development initiatives which are successful or not
> depending on the adequacy and coherence
> of Mission&Vision, Strategy, Intent, Goals, Plans, Commitments, Competencies,
> Energy and
> Automation, Teambuilding, Collaboration, Tenacity, Achievement, Recognition,
> and Co-celebration.
> Customers will be Product Managers, Innovation Officers, Chief Knowledge
> Officers, not IT department.
> Before we dive into details of how to make specific cases, I suggest it
> would be beneficial to take a finer stock of the problem space.
>
> As Todd notes here,
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Todd J Schneider
> <todd.schneider@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Having the "foot in the doors" many of the other benefits
>> of using ontologies (and their risks) can be shown. But first,
>> you need to get someone to listen.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> It is important to identify who the potential audiences are. The case for an
> ontology needs to be made and is different for a CEO, CTO, engineer,
> programmer and whoever else requires convincing in an organization or
> culture.
> The approaches noted by Todd, Deborah and Steve W. presume a particular use
> / technical component of an ontology (OWL, databases or...).
>>
>> [TS] There are multiple ways to answer each of these variants, but
>>
>> it would be more effective if all the possible answers used
>>
>> a common theme (i.e., the sales pitch). As evidenced by the
>>
>> current uses of 'ontologies', the aspect of data models seems
>>
>> optimal as the entree for starting an engagement with sceptics.
>
> Before we do that, it is important as well to identify the different uses of
> formal ontologies in organizations. This certainly extends beyond using
> ontologies in database environments. Indeed, in one of the decks Bradley
> shared here:
>
>http://rmc-ca.academia.edu/BradleyShoebottom/Papers/358330/Getting_Started_with_Semantics_in_the_Enterprise
> Slide 6 identifies some application types for an ontological approach in an
> organization. Not all of these are suited for OWL or require mentions of the
> RDMS world. To the projects identified there, one could add several more to
> do with software development, model verification, systems to retain the
> knowledge of employees who are retiring and more that I'm sure others on
> this list can contribute.
> Moreover, each of these projects might have parts of a case which are common
> to others, but some which are different. For example, an ontology that must
> be "reasoned on" or accessed in real time, vs one that is used for off-line
> verification or even to guide the design of some system will have very
> different cases to be made.
> Building on what Steve and Nicola started with the domain identification
> here:
>
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2010_12_16#nid2K6V
>
> Before we skipping into the details of particular projects, or perhaps
> alongside the development of technology specific cases, we would benefit
> from collecting and then synthesizing the different responses people give
> to:
> 1. Who is the audience?
> CEO, CTO, Project Manager, SysAdmin, IT Manager, Programmers, etc.
> Note: a CEO, CTO, VP of X, or Project Manager might hold the purse strings
> and/or a yes/no veto for a project started; while the implementers, other
> stakeholders and programmers are the culture. At the very least, two very
> different cases need to be made here for a successful ontology project:
> cultural / technical vs business / technical.
> 2. How can one use an ontology in an organization / culture?
> (Bradley, I hope you don't mind that I've reproduced your bullets here):
>
> Semantic integration of various data bases
> Knowledge Exploration
> Semantic annotation
> Automatic document tagging
> Auto-summarization of a document
> Business intelligence mash-ups
> Decision making support
> Common metadata vocabulary for self annotation of documents
> Software development framework / guidelines
> Model verification
> Knowledge retention resource
>
> 3. Are there any major themes or patterns through the above answers?
>
> Ontology implementations with real-time vs off-line requirements.
> Ontologies with decidability concerns.
> Ontologies with binary or other quality requirements (i.e. you can't make
> mistakes when designing planes, you can tolerate mistakes in designing
> social sites)
>
> I seeded answers to these questions with a high-level synthesis of the
> previous discussions, but please feel free to adjust. I didn't add this to
> the wiki because I'm not sure where it should go, if at all - again, feel
> free to add to the appropriate wiki page+section if useful.
> Best,
> Ali
> --
> www.reseed.ca
> www.pinkarmy.org
>
> (•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,., (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/OntologySummit2011/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (011)
|