|To:||Ontology Summit 2012 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|From:||Amanda Vizedom <amanda.vizedom@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Sat, 28 Jan 2012 20:48:12 -0500|
I assume that Steve and Trish will be following the spirit and description of Track 4 and asking all invitees to talk about *use cases*, including interesting features and lessons learned (including whatever evaluations of performance and value may have been performed). I've no doubt that promotional or sales-like presentations will be discouraged equally of anyone participating.
That said, I doubt that *any* use case owner is going to be willing to share their case or lessons openly if they feel that the summit will be used as a trial venue for them, their system, their methods and such overall. And even if they were willing, such a treatment would be just as off-topic as its promotional opposite.
I share Matthew's concerns about focus, and I don't think we're going to get there by defining focus in the abstract. I think we will be best able to make progress by having some of this general discussion, then looking at particular use cases to sharpen our focus. From there some foci should emerge that are close enough to where real work is being done to point the continuing discussion toward areas in which the results of this community's exchange of idea can be of real use.
If this approach is right, it's important that we have a good set of use cases *and treat them as use cases*. That is, we want to analyze and learn from them, collaboratively. We will lose that opportunity if we treat them either as promotional sessions or adversarial encounters. I trust our Track 4 co-champions to focus on bringing in presenters who have the knowledge and attitude to provide their use cases for collective analysis and discussion (and who very probably see that setting the community thinking about issues they encountered has high potential value for their own, and the field's, understanding). To encourage such participation and to get the most out of it, we need to stay focused on the professional, technical collaboration, not on individual or product promotion or denigration, as well.
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 20:11, Barry Smith <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Any speaker should be asked to provide empirical evidence to the effect that Cyc did indeed bring benefits to any real system
_________________________________________________________________ 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>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontology-summit] Track on Cyc?, Barry Smith|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Summit process [was - Re: [Big Systems and SE] summit session-03], John F. Sowa|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontology-summit] Track on Cyc?, Barry Smith|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontology-summit] Track on Cyc?, Steve Ray (CMU)|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|