[Top] [All Lists]

[ontology-summit] Boiling it down to a Elevator Pitch (or even a Sound B

To: Ali Hashemi <ali@xxxxxxxxx>, Ontology Summit 2011 <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 10:33:27 -0700
Message-id: <BANLkTimkvJcBcQ+jESrfYsfSZTH4ZZVHQA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Ali and All,    (01)

Given this input, and the useful dialog around it that we had during
the (Apr-7) Communique draft review session - ref.
... and the conversation below that - can I interest you to roll that
up into an "elevator pitch" and post that input to:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_MakingTheCase_CommunityInput#nid2NFS    (02)

I extend this solicitation again to everyone who has been refining (or
helping the community refine) his/her message about "the case for
Ontology", we will be pointing people to those inputs ... so, please
please send them in NOW (before the end of day Friday)!    (03)

... feel free to send those Elevator Pitches and Sound Bites in, ASAP,
through the online survey form, post it to the wiki, or even email
them to me (if you want me to post them to the wiki for you.) - see:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_MakingTheCase_CommunityInput#nid2NFS    (04)

Thanks & regards.  =ppy
--    (05)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ali Hashemi <ali@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Summit 2011: Communique draft
review session - Thu 2011.04.07.
To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>    (06)

Some comments about the take aways that Michael Uschold mentioned
(bullet points 1-7 & also 1-5a-b on the draft Communiqué).
Familiar Friend    (07)

I would like to propose an integral take away that might not be as
immediately concrete as those specified there, but would nonetheless
play an important role in the decision making process.    (08)

Specifically, I would want a reader to come away with the feeling that
an ontology "fits". It's not a new, foreign, idea that one would have
to expend a lot of energy to integrate to a particular socio-technical
system, but a natural outgrowth of whatever it was you were already
doing.    (09)

Sort of like "We've been doing ontology all along, but I never knew it".    (010)

===    (011)

Ontological Analysis vs Artifact    (012)

I would also like to suggest a clearer delineation between an ontology
artefact and the methodology and process of ontological analysis. I
think there is market just for the latter, even if it doesn't
necessarily result in a formal, computational ontology.    (013)

Namely, given the current state of adoption and most importantly,
comprehension in industry of ontology, it might not be possible to
demonstrate how an ontology artifact would necessarily lead to
immediate benefits. Indeed, as was pointed out in the just-completed
telecon, it is very difficult to consistently come up with a set of
generic value metrics to judge the success of a program. And half the
problem is in understanding the problem domain anyway. If a company is
unfamiliar with ontology, would they even be able to articulate their
problem clearly and map it to such metrics?    (014)

Alternatively, it should be possible how ontological analysis of the
business (organization) domain (process / subdomain / problem) can
help the business:    (015)

increase self-awareness
identify possible ways that an ontology artifact(s) can deliver value
develop a road map for a long term plan of incrementally deploying
semantic technologies    (016)

Yes, these are notoriously difficult ROI cases, that have to be
tailored to each particular context. But they are necessary stepping
stones / landmarks in any strategy.    (017)

To summarize and rephrase:    (018)

An additional key take away might be that - even if I am a business
that has no clear/concrete idea of how ontology might help me out
(especially as a particular type of technology solution -- should i go
with OWL? a data dictionary? a full-on ontology? what level of
reasoning do I really need, if at all?), I should at least come away
feeling that ontological analysis is absolutely necessary for any
possible solution. It is an essential component of my ability as a
manager or decision maker in my company to make an informed choice as
to how to go forward. And without such work, I might not know enough
about my problem domain from an ontology perspective to be able to
intelligently pick and choose the most relevant use caes.    (019)

The result of simply engaging an ontology-based analysis might then
suggest to start with a simple vocabulary or terminology, or to simply
enhance key components of a db here, or a best practices there. It
would come up with the value metrics itself. That is to say, no
immediate full scale commitment to any particular ontology artifact,
but a commitment to ontological analysis and modeling. This is a far
less expensive endeavor, and already sets the pre-sale for the next
one (if applicable).
Is this (un)clear?    (020)

www.pinkarmy.org    (021)

(•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,.,    (022)

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/     (023)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>