ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] Communique: makign the case, or summaizing our res

To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Obrst, Leo J." <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 17:12:18 -0500
Message-id: <0111C34BD897FD41841D60396F2AD3D307A816539E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I agree: option 1 is the way to go, but with each of the track sections 
understanding that they need to direct their material toward the strategy and 
the overall goal of "making the case." Probably an Introduction that describes 
the overall intent of Ontology Summit 2011 and general issues, with the 
individual track section lead-in paragraphs emphasizing how they view "making 
the case" in their section, describing their contribution, then summarizing. 
Then the Strategy section could pull these together, and in effect act as 
summary about how to make the case.     (01)

The more concrete, the better.    (02)

Thanks,
Leo
      (03)

-----Original Message-----
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Fabian Neuhaus
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 4:54 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Communique: makign the case, or summaizing our 
results?    (04)

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    (05)

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
>    (06)


_________________________________________________________________
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/     (07)

_________________________________________________________________
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)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>