ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] Boiling it down to a Elevator Pitch (oreven a Soun

To: "'Ontology Summit 2011 discussion'" <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Matthew West" <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:30:00 +0100
Message-id: <4da712f7.4536e30a.083c.6719@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear Cory,    (01)

OK, I buy that. However, I think you need to be a bit more specific in the
section I was critiquing about how the data modelling tools are suffering. I
certainly got no hint of what you just said below.    (02)

Regards    (03)

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/    (04)

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.    (05)




> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cory Casanave
> Sent: 13 April 2011 20:46
> To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Boiling it down to a Elevator Pitch (oreven
a
> Sound Bite) [was - Fwd: Ontology Summit 2011:Communique draft review
session -
> Thu 2011.04.07]
> 
> Matthew,
> I partially agree with your position on good quality modeling providing
many
> advantages for data federation.  For example, we currently have a large
> financial client who has the typical multi-way data integration problem.
We
> gave them a choice of using UML+MDA or Ontologies for producing the
"canonical
> model" they wanted as the logical pivot point between data structures.
They
> chose UML and it is going quite well, we can produce a nice conceptual
model
> that can be mapped to various applications. The canonical model is not a
"data
> model", it is a model if their domain.  It is proven that this kind of
model
> can be mapped to a lot of technologies, at least if you have good people
doing
> it.  {ok, end of my advertisement}
> 
> But, they have a lot of control and are essentially the only authority for
> this conceptual model.  Within their domain they can come to agreement on
what
> information is relevant for their set of applications.  However even with
> this, the mapping of the canonical model to technologies requires
proprietary
> data mapping tooling and infrastructure.  Where there are independently
> conceived representations of the same or related things or there are
different
> viewpoints with different ways to structure the same information, the
well-
> conceived structural model we can do in UML does not work as well. Where
we
> have to start relating these different ways to conceive or structure
> information the relations we can define in ontologies show their
advantage.
> Personally I don't think we need very sophisticated ontologies, but we
need
> more than lines with tag names on the end.
> 
> Where we are addressing the data federation and sharing problem we almost
> always are starting from these independently conceived models and multiple
> viewpoints, so I would stick by my assertion that leveraging ontologies
> provides additional benefit.
> 
> -Cory
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew West
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 3:40 AM
> To: 'Ontology Summit 2011 discussion'
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Boiling it down to a Elevator Pitch (oreven
a
> Sound Bite) [was - Fwd: Ontology Summit 2011:Communique draft review
session -
> Thu 2011.04.07]
> 
> Dear Cory,
> 
> A comment or two below.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> > Most mainstream modeling techniques
> > are challenged when faced with federating independently conceived
models.
> 
> MW: Can't resist a plug here. Try "Developing high Quality Data Models".
> 
> Regards
> 
> 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/
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> >
> > 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#nid2
> > RUR ... 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/
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/    (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>