ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] An example of the worth of ontology development

To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Jack Ring <jring7@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 09:29:24 -0700
Message-id: <126BEA25-43B1-4443-9E60-8D1044FDDBE5@xxxxxxxxx>
John,
I suggest that a gaggle of humans can agree on things they don't understand in 
the following sense.
Background: A Goal is something to which you commit because you understand how 
to achieve it. A Stretch Goal is something to which you commit even though you 
don't understand what is involved let alone what effort will be required, when. 
You commit to a stretch goal because you understand that achieving it it 
relevant and significant.
This means that some members of the gaggle who don't understand the goal will 
'sign up' to pursuing the stretch goal.
In the context of helping a prospect traverse Awareness, Appreciation and 
Acceptance of the need for better, faster, cheaper knowledge exchange we can 
help them understand the goal even if they don't understand ontology let alone 
ontology development.
I do not assume we disagree about this but I did want to highlight the notion 
that getting prospect commitment to LEARN is a key.
Jack
On Mar 2, 2011, at 10:10 AM, John F. Sowa wrote:    (01)

> Jack and Mike,
> 
> I agree with that point, but I'd like to add some qualifications:
> 
> JR
>> The primary purpose of a semantic model is to facilitate knowledge
>> exchange and choice making in a gaggle of humans in hopes of
>> morphing the gaggle into a system. A key usage is to inform the
>> development of an executable ontology, e.g., application software,
>> for automation of information flow and decision. Another key purpose
>> is to provide a basis for objective assessment of enterprise
>> situation (aka evidence-based management).
> 
> MU
>> Yes, this is the kind of thing I'm after.
> 
> The primary qualification is that the "gaggle of humans" can only
> agree on what they understand.  The people who work in a field
> can all agree that a list of familiar words, as documented in
> their familiar texts, cover their familiar subject matter.
> 
> But when ontologists start to axiomatize those terms in some
> arcane notation based on some arcane distinctions about
> endurants, perdurants, continuants, etc., all bets are off.
> 
> 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/     (02)


_________________________________________________________________
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/     (03)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>