The advantage of the CIM3 website is all of the wiki content etc is already in
the same place. Text searches etc would more easily find relevant threads. It
would be great to do some data visualizations, great to include more images and
diagrams.
(01)
DEBORAH MACPHERSON, CSI CCS, AIA
Specifications and Research
(02)
Cannon Design
1100 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 2900
Arlington, Virginia 22209
(03)
Direct Line 703 907 2353
4 Digit Dial 6353
(04)
dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cannondesign.com
(05)
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
(06)
-----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
(07)
Dear Ali and All,
(08)
Thank you, Ali ... this is great! ... I concur and encourage everyone
interested to actively engage in this conversation.
(09)
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.)
(010)
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.
(011)
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.)
(012)
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).)
(013)
Thanks & regards. =ppy
--
(014)
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_ValueMetric
> s_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
> communique+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
>
>
> --
>
>
> (•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,.,
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
(015)
_________________________________________________________________
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/
(016)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (017)
|