Michael and All, (01)
> [MU] I would like for us to have as a stretch goal, to at least have a shot
>at
> "making the case" in a few paragraphs at the end, say. An elevator case? (02)
[ppy] if you do that at all (the lead editing team's call,
eventually), I would suggest making (at the least) 6 different
pitches, one to each of the 6 categories identified ... we have a
range of sound bites and elevator pitches to choose from (more by the
time you need them, I hope)
- see:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_MakingTheCase_CommunityInput (03)
Regards. =ppy
-- (04)
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 4:44 PM, uschold <uschold@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> OK - I think that practically speaking, it may be our only option. And also,
> it is good to concisely summarize the background work we have done.
> I would like for us to have as a stretch goal, to at least have a shot at
> "making the case" in a few paragraphs at the end, say. An elevator case?
> Michael (05)
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Obrst, Leo J. <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> The more concrete, the better.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Leo (06)
>> -----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?
>>
>> 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 (07)
>> 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 (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)
|