Dear Cory, (01)
A comment or two below. (02)
> 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. (03)
MW: This is not true. The tools are quite neutral, and you can do pretty
much anything you can do with OWL with pretty much any data modelling tool. (04)
MW: What is true is that the data models developed for particular
applications are usually designed to support the processing specific to that
application (to improve application performance) and as a result of that
they are not simply subsets of some corporate data model, and you cannot
create a corporate data model by just adding together the separate
application data models. (05)
> Most mainstream modeling techniques
> are challenged when faced with federating independently conceived models. (06)
MW: Can't resist a plug here. Try "Developing high Quality Data Models". (07)
Regards (08)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 1489 880185
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (09)
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (010)
>
> 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.
>
> -----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
> --
>
>
> ---------- 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
>
> (*`'·.¸(`'·.¸(*)¸.·'´)¸.·'´*) .,.,
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/ (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (012)
|