Hi, Great conversation. Another way to look at this is: Ontology facilitates functionality that is in demand. Last nite I went to a seminar on Interaction Design for Mobile Aps. Most of the applications mentioned and future desired functionality could be/are being powered by ontology or ontology-like/lite tools. As the world becomes more interconnected, ontology is required (or at least a useful tool) to fuel the demand for cross system functionality. - Donna Fritzsche -----Original Message-----
>From: Christopher Spottiswoode
>Sent: Nov 14, 2014 6:18 AM
>To: 'Ontology Summit 2015 discussion'
>Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Summit 2015 Theme
>
>John,
>
>Thank you for asking:
>
>> What does ontology add?
>
>Here is a starting offer, hopefully not unduly compressed:
>
>Ontology the discipline helps discover real conceptual commonality with
>greater ubiquity and permanence, and further helps invent deliverable
>ontologies or sharable conceptual structures that information systems can
>manipulate to help people create, cultivate and exploit ever more such
>social capital.
>
>Yes, that is of course a biased version, implicitly culminating in the
>notion of "Ontology Chemistry" which I am busy building up to in a
>multi-part series of posts on "Ontology as the basis of The Mainstream of
>Software Engineering and Social Apps". (The second and still the latest
>published part, itself copying the first, is now archived at
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2014-11/msg00018.html.)
>
>Whereas Part II was merely a provisional survey of the internal or technical
>aspects of the proposal, the coming parts of the series will expand on and
>link the 2 occurrences of the word "social" above, and elaborate the
>chemistry metaphor.
>
>You will see how that metaphor captures the spectacular outcomes envisioned.
>For example, not only will the notion of Social Apps be transformed into the
>constructive path to useable social capital, but search will be reshaped by
>the thereby-enabled market to render it more demand-oriented, while yet
>embodying the sort of privacy features that the IDESG, entrusted with the
>NSTIC strategy, rather forlornly dreams of.
>
>And thereby, in answer to John's question, ontology, with the vital help of
>the ontology community in future more in The Mainstream of Software
>Engineering, will add a whole lot more than it does now!
>
>(I hasten to point out that it is implicit in that last paragraph that there
>are significant areas in the full picture where the present skills of
>ontologists will most usefully complement the work of this plain Software
>Engineer in the unfolding evolution of Ontology Chemistry.)
>
>Christopher
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
>Sent: 14 November 2014 06:07
>To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Summit 2015 Theme
>
>On 11/7/2014 11:31 PM, Jack Ring wrote:
>> It may be useful to note that the shift in focus is from what a system
>> IS to what a system DOES. Net-centric emphasized the happenings among
>> the things.
>
>I agree that some shift -- any shift -- away from "IS" would be useful.
>The word 'ontology', by itself, just means the study of existence.
>Formal ontology is just the use of formal notations and methods for doing
>that study. Unless you have some other goal, that doesn't give you much
>guidance.
>
>In addition to asking "What is it?", you can get somewhat more guidance if
>you then ask "What does it do?"
>
>But I'd also like to cite the full line from Michael G's note:
>> Internet of Everything: Toward Smart Networked Systems and Societies
>
>That subtitle helps to give a bit more guidance. But I'd also like to ask
>an embarrassing question: In the initial analysis stage, does formal
>ontology give us any more help or guidance than the old 20th-century methods
>of systems analysis?
>
>There was a huge amount of work on structured systems analysis.
>Some notations and methods used logic, and others were more informal.
>And some informal systems, such as UML, were later formalized.
>
>What does ontology add?
>
>John
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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/OntologySummit2015/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2015
>Community Portal: http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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/OntologySummit2015/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2015
>Community Portal: http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/
>
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2015/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2015
Community Portal: http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/ (01)
|