I think Leo said it quite well.
I am nudging along a working group in the early stage of evolving a map of
concepts involved in system, system of systems, scientific method, system
engineering, engineering of systems and system of systems operational readiness
assessment. These maps will be converted to formal ontologies.
In hopes of avoiding the metadata wars I am emphasizing "nyms" for each entity
and relationship in the concept maps. This, of course, could lead to a very
large construct but perhaps the challenge to "nym" their respective favorite
terms and labels will suppress their ardor for being 'right.'
Jack Ring
On Feb 28, 2011, at 6:32 AM, Wisnosky, Dennis E OSD DCMO wrote: (01)
> Leo and Jack: Exactly my thoughts!
>
> Dennis E. Wisnosky
> Department of Defense
> Business Mission Area
> Chief Architect and Chief Technical Officer
> 703-607-3440
> C630-240-6910
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 6:48 PM
> To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [Making the Case] Barriers to adoption of
>ontologies
>
> 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:
>
>> 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/
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
|