ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] Making the Summit Accessible

To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Obrst, Leo J." <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 16:28:38 -0400
Message-id: <0111C34BD897FD41841D60396F2AD3D307B3E0A113@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
At some point, perhaps we can shift to  a semantic wiki, using Semantic 
MediaWiki or something similar. Then we begin to eat our own dog food, as they 
say. ;)    (01)

Thanks,
Leo    (02)

-----Original Message-----
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Yim
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 2:35 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Making the Summit Accessible    (03)

Dear Ali and All,    (04)


Thank you, Ali ... this is great! ... I concur and encourage everyone
interested to actively engage in this conversation.    (05)

1.  I agree with you, and am in favor of having *one website* as the
home to all summit "presentations" year-after-year. (I believe that
academic conferences have their annual conferences distributed in
different site-locations are a result of how "ownerships" get passed
from institution to institution, and not a function of optimal
design.)    (06)

2.  note that the Ontolog-CWE (collaborative work environment)
actually have four key components in the infrastructure (a
portal/website space, a wiki, an archived mailing list and a webdav
server ... representing four somewhat orthogonal workspaces - a
presentation space, a collaborative authoring and synchronization
workspace, a conversation space, and a shared-file repository.) With
your effort here, looks like we can finally take advantage of the
portal/website infrastructure that has been sitting around all these
years.    (07)

3.  since OntologySummit2011 is officially over, and this exercise
that you are leading is actually using OntologySummit2011 as a case to
develop something that extends beyond this year's Summit and is
important to the entire ontology community, you might consider moving
the conversation to the [ontolog-forum] list, where the reach is wider
(roughly twice the number of subscribers, and more international
participation.)    (08)

4.  to augment this threaded discussion, please consider picking one
(or even several) time slots to run real-time focused discussion
and/or workshop(s) on this effort, making use of, say, the regular
Ontolog Thursday event time slot and virtual panel discussion session
format, as you feel appropriate. Reserve any date that is marked
"open" on our Ontolog master event calendar - see:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?MeetingsCalls (email me if I
can be of help to facilitate the organization of such event(s).)    (09)


Thanks & regards.  =ppy
--    (010)


On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Ali Hashemi <ali@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> beyond the conclusion of the face-to-face meetings.
> As a follow up to yesterday's conference call
> (http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_05_19), I think
> we agreed on the need for developing something more than a Communique. We
> need to present the culmination of the summit (Communique + Tracks + Wiki
> content) in a more effective manner.
>
> Specifically, if we're considering putting the creation of a website as an
> additional explicit goal of the outcome of future summits, then I think we
> have one of two choices:
>
> One central site that contains each year
> One site for each year (i.e. how academic conferences usually collect
> material)
>
> I think the first one makes more sense, as it provides a more unified view
> of the progress of ontology and the summits. My personal experience with
> conference websites(say for IJCAI) is that each year differs highly in
> quality, they are not presented in a consistent way, and are generally a
> frustrating way to keep track of conferences over a long period of time.
> Beyond the above consideration, I would suggest that the purposeof each
> site should be to support the theme of the summit and mediate the relation
> to resources developed over the course of the summit in a more accessible
> manner.
> I'll use the2011 Making the Case Summit to illustrate what I mean by the
> above statement.
> In this case, we identified a number of tracks tackling different aspects of
> one problem -- how to construct a compelling, persuasive argument re
> ontologies. In the course of this process, we collected, developed and are
> ultimately providing the material for ontology evangelists to make actual
> cases. Not only that, but the resources we provide include identifying a set
> of target audiences and broad strategies that evangelists might actually
> employ.
> !!
> The fact that an ontology evangelist would use the output of the summit to
> make a case should drive our organization and access to the collected and
> developed material. That is how a site would support the theme of this
> year's summit.
> To briefly recap,
>
> We identified a number of different audiences
>
> who care about a number of different metrics
>
> We identified a set of benefits that ontology can provide
>
> with corersponding metrics
>
> We solicited and collected a number of use cases
>
> where presumably, ontology actually delivered those benefits
> and it is expressible via the metrics.
>
> Remembering why an evangelistwould be accessing the communique in the first
> place, this suggests a natural layout...Just to be explicit, an ontology
> evangelist wants to persuade at least the audiences we identified (+perhaps
> others that we missed) using at least the resources we provided. So given
> their audience, they're interested in only a subset of the benefits, metrics
> and use cases at any one time. Moreover it would be useful for them to see
> which use cases and value metrics apply to which audience member.
> So... We should capture these relations in our content, and provide views
> into the summit web site according to the evangelist's target audience.
>
> (Evangelist (wants_to) convince TargetAudience)
> (TargetAudiences value Benefits)
> (TargetAudiences respond_to Metrics)
> (Metrics measureBenefits)
> (UseCases deliver Benefits)
>
> The ValueMetrics Synthesis (
> 
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_ValueMetrics_Synthesis
> ) already largely captures the mapping between the UseCases and both
> Benefits and Metrics.
> As Michael Uschold noted in today's meeting, we should be able to develop an
> ontology for the usage framework. I believe it is also possible to connect
> that with the value metrics, and finally connect that to the target audience
> to create a tight loop to drive the development of our web effort.
> What we need to do is make these relations a bit more formal (and perhaps
> machine readable)! And also, clearly articulate which Benefits and which
> ValueMetrics correspond to which TargetAudience. Machine readable
> representations are particularly desirably if we want to grow the usage
> example collection and provide dynamic views of our resources to the users.
> With such a structure in place, we can then develop a site that better
> corresponds to evangelist needs. Though of course, it would also be useful
> to have a presentation scheme that presents the story of the evolution of
> the summit as well.
> Are there any volunteers? Might someone in the ValueSynthesis track be able
> to extract the relevant bits of the matrix in some formalism? Can we agree
> on a vocabulary for audience, benefits, metrics and use case types in a
> machine readable way? <-- This isalreadyinformally done in the
> communique+tracks to some degree.The results of this analysis will at the
> very leastdrivethe layout of the pages+views, and perhaps facilitate the
> technology implementation for the delivery of "nuggets" of content that
> we'll be hosting. We can discuss what a "nugget" of content means for this
> summit...
> Best,
> Ali
>
>
> --
>
>
> (.`'.(`'.(.).').'.) .,.,
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)

_________________________________________________________________
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/     (013)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>