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