Re: [ontology-summit] [Ontology Application Framework] Revised Strawman

[Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>]

The terminology and taxonomy and classifications are generally developed by subject matter expertise or along with SMEs..   ( Information providers and receivers ).   These are part of Ontology in my opinion..  IT people do not develop these on their own, unless they are the SMEs.  For example there are many MD, PhDs these days with double degree in medicine and technology or science, who wants to understand both the worlds.  Then there people who like to collaborate rather than indulge in everything.  There are many doctors who like to study certain areas of medicine and research and cure people rather than develop information architecture themselves..  It depends. ..

Generally, CIO are responsible for processes, policy  for information flow,  storage, security and any management related issues for computerized information.. 
CTOs are responsible for the technology stacks and policies and management of technology profile..
Yet again roles and responsibilities are not set in stone, and are defined with in organization to meet its needs. 



--- On Fri, 3/11/11, Jack Ring <jring7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Jack Ring <jring7@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [Ontology Application Framework] Revised Strawman Proposal
To: "Ontology Summit 2011 discussion" <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, March 11, 2011, 10:04 AM

Ontology pushers would be much more popular if they understood that operational people negotiate the shared aspects of their respective ontologies every day.
Acknowledging this will help us help them enlist the IT "machinery" in their task.
Reminds me of the time not too long ago when the advent of Basic from Dartmouth expanded the market for computer usage ten fold. Today most ontologists are asking users to work at the mnemonic level. Waiting on the CIO is not a winning strategy.

On Mar 11, 2011, at 6:48 AM, Anders Tell wrote:

> Shouldnt we show (teach) operational people the power of ontology so they can do their part? and not indicate that IT and engineers do it so much better?
>
> Maybe the terminological benefits that John S. are pointing out could be the base for a Business variant of big O?


_________________________________________________________________
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/     (01)