The main issue that arose from the material I presented was the claim that
ontology is not equivalent to algorithm. The systems engineering practice needs
a semiotic transformer among the variegated participants. One example is the
the stuff that Top Quadrant is building with NASA. If ontology is
inappropriate then are you interested only in the needs of systemists that can
be satisfied by complicated taxonomies? (01)
On Jan 27, 2012, at 7:18 AM, Jack Ring wrote: (02)
> Having combined two distinct topics into one track you now ask that we
>deselect our sub-topics to fit the limited bandwidth. Will this arrive at a
>compelling summit in April?
> On Jan 27, 2012, at 2:01 AM, Matthew West wrote:
>> Thank you very much for your contributions yesterday. Your talks obviously
>> raised considerable interest.
>> If there is a problem, it is that there is just too much material to go at
>> in the remainder of the Ontology Summit on this track. So I would ask you
>> each to nominate just two focussed topics from the discussions last night,
>> that you would like to see progress made during the rest of the summit.
>> Mine are:
>> - Ontology of System Components
>> - Design Language Interoperability
>> Matthew West
>> Information Junction
>> Tel: +44 1489 880185
>> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
>> Skype: dr.matthew.west
>> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
>> and Wales No. 6632177.
>> Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
>> Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
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/ (04)