We'll always need both terminologies (ways to refer, i.e., the terms,
words/phrases, labels) + ontologies (the concepts, referents/categories of
referents, i.e., the representation of the meaning of those terms). Why?
Because humans use natural language and may refer to the same referent in
different ways (jargons, specialized sub-languages, Community of Interest
terms, different human languages). So you need both, if you want machines to
help us semantically. (01)
Most of the "metadata" wars that we have all experienced are due to the
conflation of these two notions, term and concept, label and meaning. People
tend to fight to the death to ensure that their "word" is used in the metadata
scheme or vocabulary or common schema, and forget that the important thing is
that their "meaning" is included, and represented in the emerging model. (02)
Thanks,
Leo (03)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 4:58 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [Making the Case] Barriers to adoption of
ontologies (04)
Thanks for highlighting this. FWiW, I presume a 'standard ontology' one that is
Fit For Purpose is one that contains all the 'nyms' relevant to the intended
usage. Standard does NOT mean one and only one term for each concept or one and
only one label for each attribute. (05)
Perhaps John meant otherwise.
Jack (06)
On Feb 24, 2011, at 2:41 PM, Joanne Luciano (gmail) wrote: (07)
> My 2 cents:
>
> If we're talking sales.... selling to improve adoption
>
> We need to sell on the
>
> Flexible Data Model
>
>
> (got this from Toby Toby Segaran Data Magnate Metaweb Technologies (just
>acquired by Google). He gave the keynote this morning at CSHALS
>
>
>http://www.iscb.org/cshals2011-program/cshals2011-keynote/cshals2011-keynote-segaran
>
> His slides are here: http://kiwitobes.com/presentations/SegaranCSHALS2011.pdf
>
>
> (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 :)
>
> with the flexible data model, new "fields" can be added without breaking the
>schema
> 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.
>
> 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
>
> Joanne
>
>
> 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
>
> On Feb 24, 2011, at 4:19 PM, Jack Ring wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> Onward,
>> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/ (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (010)
|