ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] Boiling it down to an Elevator Pitch (or even a So

To: Cory Casanave <cory-c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:27:03 -0700
Message-id: <BANLkTimDLebHwQU+TEtaLcBB_4GYPOxWGQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>