Thank you very much, Cory. Your pitch is on the wiki now.
see:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_MakingTheCase_CommunityInput#nid2RX9 (01)
Regards. =ppy
-- (02)
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Cory Casanave <cory-c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Peter,
> I have tweaked the message somewhat as requested:
>
> Addressing the data sharing and federation problem with ontologies (Cory
>Casanave, Model Driven Solutions):
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Semantic technologies can serve to define and connect the meaning of data,
>processes and services as ontologies. Contrast this ontology approach with
>just static data structures identified with tags names as are the foundation
>of classical data modeling and data schema. Ontologies offer the potential
>for making a substantial contribution to solving the "data problem" though
>better understanding of the meaning behind the symbols we use in our data and
>data schema. By better understanding we are able to achieve improved data
>sharing and federation. This is not just theory, there are multiple proof
>points where ontologies are providing real solutions today, yet there is still
>substantial opportunity to develop and leverage these technologies further.
>
> The tone of this message is best directed to:
> *(i) Policy Makers / Strategic Decision maker ... convincing them that this
>is the strategic direction to go
> *(iii) Technology Decision Makers (CIOs, Architects, etc.) ... convincing
>them that this is the approach (at a higher level) (03)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cory Casanave
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 5:43 PM
> To: Ontology Summit 2011; Ali Hashemi
> Subject: RE: [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]
>
> The data sharing and federation problem (Cory Casanave, Model Driven
>Solutions):
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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]
>
> Ali and All,
>
> 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
>
> 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)!
>
> ... 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
>
> 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>
>
>
> Some comments about the take aways that Michael Uschold mentioned (bullet
>points 1-7 & also 1-5a-b on the draft Communiqué).
> Familiar Friend
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Sort of like "We've been doing ontology all along, but I never knew it".
>
> ===
>
> Ontological Analysis vs Artifact
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> Alternatively, it should be possible how ontological analysis of the business
>(organization) domain (process / subdomain / problem) can help the business:
>
> 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
>
> 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.
>
> To summarize and rephrase:
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> Cheers,
> Ali
> --
> www.reseed.ca
> www.pinkarmy.org
>
> (*`'·.¸(`'·.¸(*)¸.·'´)¸.·'´*) .,., (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (07)
|