Folks,
I realize that it is rather late in the day to suggest new
ideas,
but there is one that has bothered me for a long time.
Perhaps it
might suggest some thoughts to anyone who is writing this
weekend.
The idea came from a member of the audience who came up to
me
during the coffee break in a tutorial I presented at the
2010
Semantic Technology conference in San Francisco.
He was a member of the IT staff at the Cleveland Clinic,
where
consultants from Cyc had installed Cyc and were working
with the
IT staff. Following is an article written by the Cyclers:
http://www.cyc.com/technology/whitepapers_dir/Harnessing_Cyc_to_Answer_Clincal_Researchers_ad_hoc_Queries.pdf
But the man who was talking with me said that there was
"a basic disconnect" between the Cyclers and the IT staff.
The Cyc software, the way it works, and they way that the
Cyclers described it was foreign to what the IT staff
does.
The Cyclers got it installed and working, but the IT staff
didn't know how to maintain it, modify it, extend it, or
use
it in any way other than what was set up for them.
That "basic disconnect" is the fundamental barrier that is
blocking the adoption of ontology: the IT people have no
clue
about what to do with it. And I am not blaming the IT
personnel
-- I blame the ontologists who develop software without
having
any idea of how it could, would, or should be used by IT
staff.
If we want to sell ontology, we have to make that
connection.
If anybody has any good ideas about how to do that, it
would
be helpful to mention them.
John Sowa
_________________________________________________________________
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/