On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 08:54, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: (01)
> NG
>> I believe that the questions below ("Why haven't semantic technologies
>> been adopted as an integral part of the IT mainstream?" and similar),
>> although very relevant, are out of scope for the present Summit. Indeed,
>> these issues have been discussed rather extensively in the latest Summit,
>
> Last year's summit did not get into those issues. It consisted of talks
> that said "Ontologies are wonderful. You should be using them." A year
> later, we see that the major web companies have abandoned any pretense
> of using ontologies, and people who need to share Big Data ignore them. (02)
AV2: This is not an accurate or fair characterization of last year's
summit. While the focus of the last year's summit was indeed on making
the case, it was not assumed or widely believed that any such blanket
case should be made. A substantial thread, advocated by a significant
chunk of summit participants, argued that you can and should make no
case before knowing whether there is one, and if so, which one it is.
That thread shows up throughout the last year's outputs and tempers
the marketing orientation. As you know, I was not on the organizing
team last year, and my argument with you hear is not about defending
my own work; rather, I am very much supportive of, and motivated to
invest my time further by, the very degree to which this forum has
avoided the mistakes of which you here accuse it. (03)
Some places in which a much more nuanced and humble understanding shows up: (04)
* In the Communiqué
(http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_Communique),
e.g., in discussion of establishing relevance ("Understand what kind
of problem your audience has. (2SYB)
Highlight how the specific ontology-based solution you propose
addresses this sort of problem.") (05)
* In the enormous effort that went into the development of the
Application Cases
(http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_ApplicationCases_Synthesis)
and the Ontology Usage Framework
(http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_ApplicationFramework_Synthesis),
both of which zeroed in on areas that appeared to be providing real
benefit. Marketing effectiveness was not the only reason for doing so;
other reasons included the desire to avoid making false value claims
and the desire to be effective in understanding particular problems
and bringing to them the right solutions. (06)
* In the value metrics synthesis
(http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_ValueMetrics_Synthesis),
in which an analysis is offered of where and how ontologies are
currently capable of providing value. This is the very opposite of
claiming that they are, now or in principle, good for everyone or
everywhere. (07)
* In the widespread incorporation into last year's summit of lessons
from the prior year,
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2010, in which
extensive effort was put into learning where and how ontology is
currently being used and by whom, and corresponding effort was put
into analysis of the implications for what ontologists should be
thinking about and doing. (08)
Indeed, this year's summit topic, while still in need of some
narrowing in, can be seen as a continuation of this effort to focus
community effort on areas in which there is high potential, and to
focus in further to identify where that potential is and how to
realize it. Notice also that in following this direction, considerable
effort is being made to conduct this exploration in a way that
includes, and will be most likely to benefit, not just or primarily
ontologists, but those working in the area of focus for whom only
*actually useful* ontology applications would be a boon. (09)
Perhaps viewing this trend toward a more applied approach, along with
the general determination to focus summit effort on making progress
in specific areas of potential benefit, will help the general summit
community understand why repeated attention is being paid to issues of
scope. General topics of ontological interest are being nudged back
out to the ontolog-forum context, not because they are of no interest,
but because success of this summit is dependent on being able to set
general discussion aside and focus specifically on understanding where
the areas of beneficial application are within the stated problem
area, and how those areas might be most usefully and successfully
addressed. (010)
Best,
Amanda (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)
|