ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] Making the Summit Accessible

To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 16:43:22 -0700
Message-id: <BANLkTimrqryiyMcCsyf6Md-m-q+QDkhd+g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Indeed! ... That too, as a parallel effort to improving visibilty and
accessibility (as Ali suggested at the May-19 session.)    (01)

... as mentioned before, we will migrate the Ontolog wiki content from
(the current) PurpleWiki to a Purple Semantic MediaWiki platform (and
work has been underway.)    (02)

Regards.  =ppy
--    (03)


On 5/22/11, Obrst, Leo J. <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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. ;)
>
> Thanks,
> Leo    (04)


> -----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
>
> Dear Ali and All,
>
>
> Thank you, Ali ... this is great! ... I concur and encourage everyone
> interested to actively engage in this conversation.
>
> 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.)
>
> 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.
>
> 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.)
>
> 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).)
>
>
> Thanks & regards.  =ppy
> --    (05)


> 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 purpose of 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 the 2011 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 evangelist would 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 measure Benefits)
>> (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 is already informally done in the
>> communique+tracks to some degree. The results of this analysis will at the
>> very least drive the 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
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> (.`'.(`'.(.).').'.) .,.,    (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>