Michael
I believe there is much consensus that it is hard to make the case for
ontology in the abstract, in particular since the presentation needs to
vary depending on the audience. Thus, I would suggest to follow option
1. The resulting document maybe not more than "solid background material
for writing a document focused on making the case", but in my opinion
that would be a valuable resource to have.
Fabian (01)
On 3/3/2011 12:13 PM, Michael F Uschold wrote:
> There are two very different ways to write a communique.
> 1. summarize the results of our 5 tracks, tied together in some nice way
> 2. make the case for ontology
> If the former, we can talk about case studies, and the application
> framework etc, and the makign the case part will be discussed in the
> strategy section.
> If the latter, we make no attempt to summarize the tracks per se, we
> just take our best shot at making the caes for ontology, period. This
> is probably more useful, and we can point to output of each track, to
> the extent that they exist. This approach may also be much harder to
> organize, meaning and produce. Having each track lead produce a
> summary of their results is not really much more than solid background
> material for writing a document focused on making the case.
>
> Your thoughts?
> Michael
>
> --
> Michael Uschold, PhD
> Senior Ontology Consultant, Semantic Arts
> LinkedIn: http://tr.im/limfu
> Skype, Twitter: UscholdM
> (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)
|