ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] [Making the Case] Barriers to adoption of ontologi

To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Jack Ring <jring7@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:48:25 -0700
Message-id: <96E8CC4E-6007-4D2C-B0B4-0DB6C6C32556@xxxxxxxxx>
While much of this 'war' can be attributed to human nature a significant part 
can be attributed to the von Neumann machine's penchant for exhibiting 
exploding run times when faced with combinatorial structures.  
Now that multicore multiprocessors in a grid are becoming available more 'nyms' 
can be handled. Next comes the General Purpose Set Theoretic Processor which 
when implemented in RAM will give constant throughput at a Gb/sec regardless of 
the size and complexity of the ontology. 
Jack Ring
On Feb 24, 2011, at 3:49 PM, Obrst, Leo J. wrote:    (01)

> 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. 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Leo
> 
> 
> -----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
> 
> 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. 
> 
> Perhaps John meant otherwise.
> Jack
> 
> On Feb 24, 2011, at 2:41 PM, Joanne Luciano (gmail) wrote:
> 
>> 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/ 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>