Lead Editors & All, (01)
I've just moved an updated snapshot (take 4 / snapshot as at:
2011.04.17-07:00 PDT) of the Communique draft over to the wiki ...
at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_Communique/Draft (02)
Again, the evolving Communique draft (google-doc) is (still)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael F Uschold <uschold@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 4:57 PM
Subject: [ontology-summit-org] Communique: Take 4 (revised draft)
To: John Bateman <bateman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "John F. Sowa"
<sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Mills Davis <mdavis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Ontology Summit <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ontology
Summit 2011 Organizing Committee
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: (06)
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. (07)
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 (08)
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. (09)
FEEDBACK is specifically requested in these areas: (010)
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?) (011)
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Michael F Uschold <uschold@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks for thoughtful comments. I can easily remove some of those sound
> bites, if they are confusing. Better to leave in just those that are easy to
> agree with.
> BTW< there is a new version now - in the same google doc as before. IT is
> called "... take 4" now. You can see a separate message on that.
> I took your first round of comments into account, I added the contact fine
> print quote.
> I have adobe 10.0.1 and it is quite slow and painful to process comments.
> Should not be this way - sigh.
> Michael (013)
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Nicola Guarino <nicolguar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> please find some more comments attached, produced during my
>> flight... (I hope the annotated pdf file is readable - produced with Preview
>> on a Mac)
>> Besides minor things, my most relevant comments concern some of the "sound
>> 1. Ontology as a new paradigm -
>> "Ontology does for machines what the World Wide Web did for people." Steve
>> This is interesting, but I suspect it is very ambiguous...
>> I see there is a sense according to which this statement might be true (I
>> don't know if this is what you have in mind, Steve):
>> - the Web allows people to access to (almost) all the data they need,
>> which however need still to be interpreted by people to become useful
>> - Ontologies help machines, so to speak, to get the data they need,
>> extracting them from the Web...
>> But I am not conviced, altogether. In my opinion, the message should be
>> that, first of all, ontologies are for people (and indeed we do convey such
>> message in the rest of the communiqué). From the machines point of view,
>> ontologies ultimately rely on primitives which make no sense as such (unless
>> machines are able to ground them on perception, but this is a research
>> issue). To me, ontologies are there to help people (who are using machines)
>> to understand each other, by making explicit (to people) the hidden
>> assumptions made by the programmers of such machines .
>> Maybe the viceversa holds: ontology does for people what the world wide
>> does for machines:
>> - through shared Web services, machines are able to use each other's data;
>> - through shared ontologies, people are able to use each other's data
>> (possibly with the mediation of machines)...
>> 2. Ontology as a way of clarifying meaning -
>> “The secret to making a good movie is getting everyone to make the same
>> movie." So it is with enterprises and that's what ontologies do.' Jack Ring
>> Again, this risks to be interpreted in a dangerous way, as people may come
>> to the conclusion that ontologists want to force "everyone to make the same
>> movie". Sure, adopting the same ontology is like playing in the same movie,
>> but ontologies can do more, namely letting people understand whether or not
>> they are playing the same movie, and if not, why not... Moreover, they can
>> help establish comparisons and mapping across multiple movies...
>> Perhaps the following sound bite can help understanding the role of
>> ontologies to clarify meaning (I think Peter put it on the wiki somewhere):
>> An ontology is like a contract's fine print, one of those things which
>> require a very precise technical jargon, which you might ignore in many
>> cases, but which can save your business in critical situations...
>> 3. Ontology as a way to improve agility and flexibility -
>> “There are three main things that ontologies are good for: flexibility,
>> flexibility and flexibility” Michael Uschold
>> I think this flexibility point should be expanded, as clearly flexibility
>> might be intended in many different ways. In which sense does ontology
>> increase flexibility? To me, the answers are: 1) it detaches signs from
>> their meanings; 2) it helps recognizing each aspect of the domain as a
>> "first class citizen", to which you can attach information independently of
>> the rest....
>> Nicola (014)
>> On 15 Apr 2011, at 16:25, Michael F Uschold wrote:
>> > Everyone,
>> > Please use this email thread for all feedback on the communique.
>> > Anything submitted elsewhere risks not being addressed. If you have
>> > already submitted feedback, I will greatly appreciate if you can take a
>> > moment and re-send it on this thread using the subject.
>> > Many thanks.
>> > DETAILS:
>> > There is now a snapshot of the draft Communique on the wiki for public
>> > review and comment.
>> > See:
>> > http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_Communique/Draft
>> > The evolving draft Communique is
>> > Please refer to the process described in:
>> > http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/2011-04/msg00092.html to
>> > progress this document to its final release.
>> > Michael
>> > --
>> > Michael Uschold, PhD
>> > Senior Ontology Consultant, Semantic Arts
>> > LinkedIn: http://tr.im/limfu
>> > Skype, Twitter: UscholdM (015)
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
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/ (016)