My point was only that “To get the work funded” is less of an approach, and more of an objective. Steven R. Ray, Ph.D. Distinguished Research Fellow Carnegie Mellon University NASA Research Park Building 23 (MS 23-11) P.O. Box 1
Moffett Field, CA 94305-0001 Email: steve.ray@xxxxxxxxxx Phone: (650) 587-3780 Cell: (202) 316-6481 From: Michael F Uschold [mailto:uschold@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 7:17 PM
To: steve.r.ray@xxxxxxxxxx; Ontology Summit 2011 Organizing Committee
Cc: John Bateman; John F. Sowa; Mills Davis; Ontology Summit; matthew.west
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit-org] Communique: Take 4 (revised draft) I'm not sure how minor this is, from the perspective of the table, anyway. It seems you are suggestin a full scale rewording of each entry in the second column. I agree, your words sound a bit nicer. If you have specific suggestions to go into each row, that would help a lot. The strategy track chairs may wish to chime in - I'd rather they approved any wording to ensure accuracy Michael On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Steve Ray <steve.r.ray@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Mike, One minor point: In the Stakeholder/Approach table, I think the Approach is more appropriately something like “Demonstrating an improvement to the bottom line through cost reduction”, which could mean cost reduction during design, development, or operation. - Steve Steven R. Ray, Ph.D. Distinguished Research Fellow Carnegie Mellon University NASA Research Park Building 23 (MS 23-11) P.O. Box 1
Moffett Field, CA 94305-0001 Email: steve.ray@xxxxxxxxxx Phone: (650) 587-3780 Cell: (202) 316-6481 Communique: Take 4 I took into account all the suggestions that I received that I am aware of. If I missed any important ones, please let me know. The main differences between this one and the last: - tidied up all the loose ends, overall much more polished (i hope).
- i changed the tone from being chatty to a bit more formal and authoritative
- added editorial remarks like last years communique
- re-arranged the structure of the document a bit with new titles
- significantly enhanced with new material, mostly elaborating on things already mentinoed.
- added something about inference
- added something about broader semantic technology and knowledge technology
- did not talk about tracks per se, but rather focus areas
- added a summary at the front
-
- i greatly expanded the four themes into a whole section with many more quotes.
- i re- wrote the conclusion
- Took out all the junk
- I removed names of individual summit participants, per conventions from prior years
- it is just over 7 pages now, but there are wide margins and large fonts. It could easily be shrunk to 5 or 6 if we want. I can also remove material,if it is not tight enough.
FEEDBACK is specifically requested in these areas: - Typos and style
- Did I mess up anything in terms of flow?
- Is it too long now? If so, what should I chop? Better to whet their appetite and have them wanting more than giving them too much. E.g. I could easily remove a number of the quotes.
- How should we list the authors? (for organizing committee only?)
_________________________________________________________________
To Post: mailto:ontology-summit-org@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Msg Archives: http://interop.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit-org/
Community Files: http://interop.cim3.net/file/work/ontology-summit-org/OntologySummit2011/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
--
Michael Uschold, PhD
Senior Ontology Consultant, Semantic Arts
|
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (01)
|