I think Open Source contributors are early adopters of technologies
that work, so explaining/selling ontologies and semantic technologies
to them would be beneficial. (01)
More and more companies have been looking to see what Open Source
technology makes the cut, and incorporate them. These are both cheap
and usually quickly adopted into existing systems. Investors look at
startups to see what they are doing, and whether they can turn a
profit quickly (1-3) years. Even the success of Siri is over the head
of many. (02)
If we look at the way Open Source applications become popular, we see
it's the ones that are adopted by developers. When this happens, the
developers become the salespeople on mass. They then propose the
solutions at the grassroots level, directly to the customer. (03)
An interesting question to ask would be: How would you explain the
benefits of ontologies and semantics to developers? They are usually
tech-savvy and motivated people, but most importantly early adopters! (04)
On 3 March 2011 22:45, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 3/3/2011 7:54 PM, Michael F Uschold wrote:
>> I think there is emerging agreement that we need to focus less on
>> abstract principles and more on concrete examples that MADE MONEY and
>> for the technology folk, WHY the money was made.
>
> That is an idea everybody can understand. I like it.
>
> And I had a further thought about why I object to describing
> the purpose of an ontology as "eliminating ambiguity": that
> is a negative way of talking.
>
> In a positive sense: The primary purpose of an ontology is to make
> the structure of the subject matter clear. You don't need a formal
> notation to be clear. You can be clear in ordinary English.
>
> But I admit that a formal notation is useful because it
> makes it impossible to be vague, ambiguous, or imprecise.
> But what it says so precisely might not be what the author
> intended.
>
> In any case, I would stress the idea of *clarity*.
>
> That is a positive virtue that improves communication and
> understanding among the humans *and* the machines.
>
> Next, emphasize (a) how improved communication makes money
> and (b) how poor communication loses money.
>
> John
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/
> (05)
--
Bart Gajderowicz, MSc.
Ryerson University
http://www.scs.ryerson.ca/~bgajdero (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)
|