[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] Presenting Ontology Summit 2012

To: Ali SH <asaegyn+out@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Ken Allgood <ken.allgood@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:03:51 -0500
Message-id: <CAFkH7XVdDRVJLpXZwHfFCLe_XXLxJUiX6+b-f0rbMvZ8Y_PWtA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Agree with the approach, and think it could substantially increase information exchange and overall audience engagement.  As mentioned during the last planning session, I'm happy to help and have some IA tools I've used in the past to address such challenges.  I believe Peter stated that there was a starting list of different consumer/contributor types and associated use context details which had already been assembled.  If that's the case, we can begin with those, derive potential use cases/engagement models, and come up with usable personas and a classification approach fairly quickly.

Peter, could you point us to that referenced list of candidate consumers/contributors?


On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Ali SH <asaegyn+out@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello all,

This email is an attempt to solicit help in making the output of this year's Ontology Summit more accessible to those who did not participate in the summit.

While the wiki and the communique are wonderful resources, they are not aimed at a general audience. If we wish to increase the relevance of all the activity that is currently underway, we could start by making the content more welcoming and intuitively navigable.

The main motivation is that an ontologist or engineer coming to the website is not necessarily interested in the entire content, but some subselection of it. Moreover, to use a hackneyed phrase - it would be good for us to eat our own dogfood.

Given the limited amount of time and resources at our disposal (and problems I ran into last year), developing a comprehensive ontology for the domain is not realistic. 

The following might be a far simpler and achievable goal (though quite a bit more brittle). By anticipating who might be interested in the output of the summit, and to what end, we could provide just those bits of content that are of interest to them, in a clear, aesthetically engaging way.

This would necessitate determining audience types, correlating to who would want to view the summit and why. Examples might include: 
  • Working systems engineer, wants to apply learnings from summit to their project
  • Ontologist looking for design patterns to describe functions or systems
  • etc.
If we can identify a set of use cases that would cover the bulk of anticipated interactions on the website, then we can work to make the content more personalized and contextual. Namely, if we can ascertain that the visitor is an engineer interested in systems of Type A (hopefully an outcome of track two), then we might be able to present just those pieces of content that are associated with Type A systems.

Aside from defining our audiences and anticipated website interactions, we would also need to tag our content and write queries that would select the appropriate content according to defined user needs and interests -- a sort of proto-ontology or super lightweight ontology that simply connects information about the user with content clusters. In this way, it should be possible to structure and tag our content in such a way that we can deliver a contextualized / personalized view which matches the intention of the audience.

Any takers?

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/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012  
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/     (01)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>