The data sharing and federation problem (Cory Casanave, Model Driven Solutions): (01)
Our ability to share, manage, analyze, communicate and act upon information is
at the foundation of the modern enterprise. Information sharing is essential
for enterprise supply chains, fighting terrorism and integrating enterprise
applications. Yet, this essential capability has remained difficult in
information systems which are frequently isolated, stove piped and difficult to
integrate. The inability of our systems to share information hampers the
ability of our organizations to collaborate - for our processes, services and
information resources to work together. Some estimate that more than 1/3 of
our information technology budgets are consumed overcoming this "semantic
friction" in our systems and that the costs to society from our failure to
share and collaborate is many times the systems overhead. (02)
Mainstream tools for information and data modeling are effective at defining a
particular data model for a particular application in a particular technology
to solve a particular problem. But they suffer when applied to multiple
applications for multiple purposes over multiple technologies to deal with
unanticipated needs and opportunities. Most mainstream modeling techniques are
challenged when faced with federating independently conceived models. (03)
The semantic technologies can serve to define and connect the meaning of data,
processes and services rather than just the structure, these technologies offer
the potential of making a substantial contribution to solving the "data
problem". This is not just theory, there are multiple proof points where
semantic technologies are providing real solutions today, yet there is still
substantial opportunity to develop and leverage these technologies further. (04)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Yim
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 1:33 PM
To: Ali Hashemi; Ontology Summit 2011
Subject: [ontology-summit] Boiling it down to a Elevator Pitch (or even a Sound
Bite) [was - Fwd: Ontology Summit 2011: Communique draft review session - Thu
2011.04.07] (05)
Ali and All, (06)
Given this input, and the useful dialog around it that we had during the
(Apr-7) Communique draft review session - ref.
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_04_07#nid2RUR
... 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 (07)
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)! (08)
... 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 (09)
Thanks & regards. =ppy
-- (010)
---------- 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> (011)
Some comments about the take aways that Michael Uschold mentioned (bullet
points 1-7 & also 1-5a-b on the draft Communiqué).
Familiar Friend (012)
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. (013)
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. (014)
Sort of like "We've been doing ontology all along, but I never knew it". (015)
=== (016)
Ontological Analysis vs Artifact (017)
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. (018)
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? (019)
Alternatively, it should be possible how ontological analysis of the business
(organization) domain (process / subdomain / problem) can help the business: (020)
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 (021)
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. (022)
To summarize and rephrase: (023)
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. (024)
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? (025)
Cheers,
Ali
--
www.reseed.ca
www.pinkarmy.org (026)
(*`'·.¸(`'·.¸(*)¸.·'´)¸.·'´*) .,., (027)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (028)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (029)
|