Amanda, (01)
I certainly agree that last year's communiqué was a respectable,
well balanced statement to which I contributed a few words and
some of the editing. But in my complaint, I was expressing my
frustration that the good, hard work by many good people just
dropped silently into the depths of the WWW without creating
a noticeable ripple. (02)
JFS
>> 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. (03)
AV
> 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. (04)
Does anyone know whether it had any useful effects? (05)
AV
> 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. (06)
I wasn't accusing anybody of making any mistakes. I said that the page
for the quality track that you put together was good. But what I found
frustrating is that the kinds of "ontologies" people are actually using
are nothing but terminologies. (07)
AV
> In the enormous effort that went into the development of the
> Application Cases...
> In the value metrics synthesis... in which an analysis is offered of
> where and how ontologies are currently capable of providing value. (08)
Those are good summaries, and I have no criticisms of them. But I
was responding to Nicola's point: (09)
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. (010)
JFS
> Last year's summit did not get into those issues. (011)
That is not a criticism of last year's work. It just makes the point
that it did not address the question why AI technology in general
and ontology in particular has not made a dent on mainstream IT. (012)
I was an "early adopter" of the word 'ontology' in my 1984 book
(finished in 1983). I worked on AI projects at IBM before and
after that time, and I have been participating in conferences,
workshops, projects, emails, etc., about ontology for years. (013)
Like many people who have been working in the AI field for years,
I would like to see something useful come out of it. (014)
John (015)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (016)
|