Ah,Peter, regarding tools: I would hope your comment below about only
inlcuding open source tools was just about 'endorsement.' There is an
incredible amount of experience with all manner of commercial tools, and I
as an implementer would like to see the whole span -- commercial and/vs open
source, especially what was/is missing in the open source tools that is
available on the market in some other way. (01)
Or maybe I misunderstood your intent in your email below? (02)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Yim
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 11:30 AM
To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Presenting Ontology Summit 2012 (03)
Ken and All, (04)
The output of last year's Ontology Summit (ref.
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011OntologySummit2011
)
when we tackled the theme "Making the Case for Ontology" would be a good
starting point. (05)
Take a look at the communique from 2011 -
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_Communique (06)
Specifically, the table at:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_Communique#nid2SZ
U
which broke down the various classes of audience that ontologists would need
to make their case to, would be a good start. (07)
Thanks & regards. =ppy (08)
p.s. By the way, in view of our open-technology, open-content advocacy,
let's confine to open source tools (unless we agree to a waiver at the
organizing committee on a case-by-case basis.)
-- (09)
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Ken Allgood <ken.allgood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Ali,
>
> 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?
>
> Regards,
> Ken (010)
> 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? (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/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
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/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (013)
|