Dear Bill, (01)
I would go for that. It would probably be a good idea to explain WHY
a ULO results in a higher ROI in addition. (02)
Matthew (03)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> Bill Andersen
> Sent: 01 March 2006 14:20
> To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
> Subject: Re: [uos-convene] Other Approaches Too.
>
>
> Thanks, Matthew...
>
> 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.
>
> Shall we put this alongside the existing wording and see
> which people
> like better?
>
> .bill
>
> On Mar 1, 2006, at 04:14 , West, Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321 wrote:
>
> > 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
> (04)
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 (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|