Thanks, Matthew... (01)
You know. I should read my own posts. What's wrong with saying
ROI? When we're talking about building computer systems and not
philosophy, that *is* what we're talking about in the end. Thanks
again. (02)
Shall we put this alongside the existing wording and see which people
like better? (03)
.bill (04)
On Mar 1, 2006, at 04:14 , West, Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321 wrote: (05)
> Dear Bill,
>
> You say:
>
>> The point here is that the ROI from using ULO for both domain
>> ontology construction and for integration is higher than similar
>> attempts undertaken without ULO.
>
> I agree.
>
> I think this is what we really want to say, rather than whether it
> is essential or indeispensible. It is a simple economic argument
> that ought to be listened to by potential funders.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Matthew West
> Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
> Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
> Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
>
> Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
> Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
> http://www.shell.com
> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
>> Bill Andersen
>> Sent: 28 February 2006 23:47
>> To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
>> Subject: Re: [uos-convene] Other Approaches Too.
>>
>>
>> Hey Mike,
>>
>> See below.
>>
>> On Feb 28, 2006, at 18:31 , Uschold, Michael F wrote:
>>
>>> To the extent that 'Indispensable' is a semantic dead-ringer for
>>> 'essential', this suggestion amounts to changing 'essential' to
>>> 'increasingly essential'.
>>>
>>> Also, indispensable and essential are pretty black and white
>>> concepts, Either it is or it is not.
>>>
>>> It is not clear what 'increasingly essential's means. Nearer to a
>>> state of being essential, crossing that b/w divide?
>>>
>>> The more I think about it, the more I'm ok with the other wording,
>>> by I forget who.
>>>
>>> Something like "essential for affordable and ... semantic
>>> interoperability"
>>>
>>> This is less controversial.
>>
>> I'm not certain that "less controversial" is something we
>> ought to be
>> shooting for. The very position that ULO brings something
>> qualitatively different to building and successfully employing
>> ontologies is what's being assumed in this forum by its
>> participants. I don't know about the other "public" participants,
>> but we at Ontology Works have had much success applying our ULO and
>> Barry Smith documents similar success:
>>
>> Jonathan Simon, James Matthew Fielding and Barry Smith, “Using
>> Philosophy to Improve the Coherence and Interoperability of
>> Applications Ontologies: A Field Report on the Collaboration of
>> IFOMIS and L&C”, in Gregor Büchel, Bertin Klein and Thomas Roth-
>> Berghofer (eds.), Proceedings of the First Workshop on
>> Philosophy and
>> Informatics. Deutsches Forschungszentrum für künstliche Intelligenz,
>> Cologne: 2004, 65–72.
>> http://ontology.buffalo.edu/medo/FOBKSI.pdf
>>
>> The point here is that the ROI from using ULO for both domain
>> ontology construction and for integration is higher than similar
>> attempts undertaken without ULO. Thus, I don't think Barry's
>> wording
>> is too strong at all. I would dare say that the onus is on
>> those who
>> advocate some other path to show that ULO does not have these
>> differential ROI benefits. To do that, they would have to say how
>> they, without ULO, would have reproduced all the same results - and
>> at less cost. Such trade studies are sadly lacking.
>>
>> .bill
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
>> To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
>> Shared Files:
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/uos-convene/
>> Community Wiki:
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
> To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/
> uos-convene/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?
> UpperOntologySummit
> (06)
Bill Andersen (andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Chief Scientist
Ontology Works, Inc. (www.ontologyworks.com)
3600 O'Donnell Street, Suite 600
Baltimore, MD 21224
Office: 410-675-1201
Cell: 443-858-6444 (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/uos-convene/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit (08)
|