My 2 cents: (01)
If we're talking sales.... selling to improve adoption (02)
We need to sell on the (03)
Flexible Data Model (04)
(got this from Toby Toby Segaran Data Magnate Metaweb Technologies (just
acquired by Google). He gave the keynote this morning at CSHALS (05)
His slides are here: http://kiwitobes.com/presentations/SegaranCSHALS2011.pdf (07)
(that is underlying the ontology (e.g. RDF)) and that there can be many
(stakeholder) views on top of that Flexible Data Model. And terminology can be
standardized, however, the nice thing about standards, is there are so many to
choose from :) (08)
with the flexible data model, new "fields" can be added without breaking the
we can put different ontologies - that are created for different purposes,
selling "one ontology fit's all" will not work (imho) - because it doesn't work. (09)
also sell easy merging (with the flexible data model, when using a standard
terminology (thereby putting the terminology argument in context)
this would also facilitate "deep querying" to answer complex questions (010)
Joanne S. Luciano, PhD
Research Associate Professor
Tetherless World Constellation
Department of Computer Science
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
110 8th Street, Winslow 2143
Troy, NY 12180, USA (012)
On Feb 24, 2011, at 4:19 PM, Jack Ring wrote: (013)
> John Sowa says it very well, as usual.
> However, I suggest that the third thing we need to sell is the use of a
>standardized *terminology* for the enterprise.
> The first thing they want to hear is how they can gain better knowledge
>exchange and choice making throughout their extended enterprise.
> The second thing they want to hear is how they can ascend from coordination
>to cooperation to collaboration to co-learning to co-evolving.
> Once they believe there is a way to do this and one that is not potentially
>'career limiting' (high risk) then they will fund a pilot project to demo
>those two achievements.
> The demo will entail standardizing both terminology and "the way we do things
>around here" also called culture but they don't need to be concerned about
>that. The fact that you are going to discover one facet of their ontology and
>install a knowledge exchange transformer need not take up a lot of their
>mind-share. Once they are experiencing the joy of it all you can tell them how
>of evolve the capability to other facets of their enterprise.
> When I get time I will share a 10-facet model of an intelligent enterprise
>and a ten-C's model of the ascent of human synergy in an organization. These
>may help figure out the locus of the first demo in any given enterprise.
> I do not have an opinion about Owl other than noting that its users come
>disturbingly close to generating the old-time, dreaded spaghetti code.
> Jack Ring
> 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/ (014)
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
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/ (015)