ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] Keep Message Subject Fresh and Relevant

To: Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>, Ontology Summit 2011 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 18:22:33 -0800
Message-id: <AANLkTi=KZs4=cOGNM-qE3SOJ6Ci+9hdV_tP8d38nhsWN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> [Pavithra]  It is Peters role to mind this forum by the way..    (01)

[ppy]  that is actually not true.    (02)

Like the [ontolog-forum] list, community members are expected to use
their own best judgment and self-regulate, to keep us aligned with our
mission, keep it civil, maintain a high signal-to-noise ratio, and
make it an effective part of our collaborative work environment.    (03)

Unlike the [ontolog-forum] list, though, this is (part of) the
OntologySummit2011 discussion platform, and track champions have been
identified to help facilitate the discourse.    (04)

Thanks & regards.  =ppy
--    (05)


On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Michael  If your straw man  thing did not include roles and responsibilities 
>, probably it should..   It did say something about actors ,,,  actors have 
>roles ,,
> I found your models un necessarily complicated..
>
> It is Peters role to mind this forum by the way..    (06)


> --- On Fri, 3/11/11, Michael F Uschold <uschold@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Michael F Uschold <uschold@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Keep Message Subject Fresh and Relevant
> To: "Ontology Summit 2011 discussion" <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Friday, March 11, 2011, 12:58 PM
>
> Many threads go well off the main topic. Please remember to use the good 
>practice of changing the subject when it changes from the original thread.
> Michael
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> --
> Michael Uschold, PhD
>    Senior Ontology Consultant, Semantic Arts
>    LinkedIn: http://tr.im/limfu
>    Skype, Twitter: UscholdM    (07)


> --- 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.    (08)


> 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?    (09)

_________________________________________________________________
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/     (010)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>