OntologySummit2011: Panel Session-5 - "Strategies for 'Making the Case' - Take-I" - Thu 2011_02_24    (2M8V)

Summit Theme: OntologySummit2011: Making the Case for Ontology    (2M8U)

Session Title: Strategies for 'Making the Case' - Take-I    (2O3O)

Session Co-chairs: Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction, UK) & Mr. PeterYim (Ontolog; CIM3)    (2O3P)

Panelists:    (2O3Q)

Abstract:    (2O55)

OntologySummit2011 Theme: "Making the Case for Ontology"    (2O56)

This is our 6th Ontology Summit, a joint initiative by NIST, Ontolog, NCOR, NCBO, IAOA & NCO_NITRD. The theme adopted for this Ontology Summit is: "Making the Case for Ontology."    (2O59)

This year's Ontology Summit seeks to address the need to provide concrete evidence of successful deployment of ontologies by examining several application domains for such examples, and in better articulating where different "strengths" of ontological representation are best applied. To support that, the summit also aims to classify the categories of applications where ontology has been, and could be, successfully applied; to identify distinct types of metrics that might be used in evaluating the return on investment in an ontology application (cost, capability, performance, etc.); to lay out some strategies for articulating a case for ontological applications; and to identify remaining challenges and roadblocks to a wider deployment of such applications that represent promising application areas and research challenges for the future. The findings of the summit will be documented in the form of a communiqué intended for public consumption.    (2O5A)

The Panel Session today is organized by our Track-4 co-champions, and will be featuring a range of panelists who will tell us the strategic approach they take when making their case and the issues they find as they prosecute the case.    (2O5B)

See developing details on this Summit series of events at: OntologySummit2011 (home page for this summit)    (2O5C)

Agenda:    (2O5D)

Ontology Summit 2011 - Panel Session-5    (2O5E)

Proceedings:    (2O5K)

Please refer to the above    (2O5L)

IM Chat Transcript captured during the session:    (2O5M)

 see raw transcript here.    (2O5N)
 (for better clarity, the version below is a re-organized and lightly edited chat-transcript.)
 Participants are welcome to make light edits to their own contributions as they see fit.    (2O5O)
 -- begin in-session chat-transcript --    (2O5P)
	PeterYim: .    (2PFO)
	Welcome to the OntologySummit2011: Panel Session-5 - Strategies for 'Making the Case' - Thu 2011_02_24    (2PFP)
	Summit Theme: OntologySummit2011: Making the Case for Ontology    (2PFQ)
	Session Title: Strategies for 'Making the Case' - Take-I    (2PFR)
	Session Co-chairs: Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction, UK) & Mr. PeterYim (Ontolog; CIM3)    (2PFS)
	Panelists:    (2PFT)
	* Dr. MatthewWest (Information Junction, UK) - "Show me the Money: the benefits trail for Ontology"
	* Dr. NormanWinarsky (SRI Ventures) - "The Story of Siri, and SRI's Venture Incubator Process"
	* Dr. DeniseBedford (Kent State University) - "Role of Ontologies in Master Data Management"
	* Mr. ChrisPartridge (BORO Solutions) - "Be pragmatic, be opportunistic"
	* Mr. PeterYim (Ontolog; CIM3) - "Science & Technology that change the world: beyond good work, marketing stunts and logic"    (2PFU)
	Please refer to details (dail-in numbers, agenda, slides etc.) on the session page
	at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_02_24    (2PFV)
	 == Proceedings: ==    (2PFW)
	anonymous1 morphed into MichelVandenBossche    (2PFX)
	anonymous1 morphed into DavidLeal    (2PFY)
	anonymous1 morphed into ChrisPartridge    (2PFZ)
	anonymous3 morphed into FabianNeuhaus    (2PG0)
	anonymous1 morphed into NormanWinarsky    (2PG1)
	anonymous3 morphed into BruceMusicus    (2PG2)
	anonymous5 morphed into FrankOlken    (2PG3)
	BruceMusicus1 morphed into BruceMusicus    (2PG4)
	anonymous8 morphed into MichaelRiben    (2PG5)
	anonymous2 morphed into PhilMurray    (2PG6)
	anonymous3 morphed into AnneHunt    (2PG7)
	anonymous7 morphed into TonyRhem    (2PG8)
	SteveRay: Friendly code reminder: *3 to unmute, *2 to mute    (2PG9)
	anonymous2 morphed into DustinCote    (2PGA)
	anonymous2 morphed into ByronDavies    (2PGB)
	FrankOlken: I tried to call in with Google voip, and was told the conference calling number was not 
	a legal phone number - so I am using my cell phone.    (2PGC)
	SteveRay: @Frank: It appears that this conference calling service is blocked by some (Google 
	included). I had the same issue in the past, and now just use my Vonage account for this call.    (2PGD)
	SteveRay: @Byron: Did you need a question answered? We could try via chat.    (2PGE)
	ByronDavies: Moderator, please remove me from the queue.    (2PGF)
	SteveRay: @Byron: Done. You can toggle raising and lowering your hand by clicking the little hand 
	icon at the lower right.    (2PGG)
	anonymous3 morphed into PavithraKenjige    (2PGH)
	ToddSchneider: Matthew, could you repeat the two uses of ontologies?    (2PGI)
	Matthew West: @Todd - Use 1 is in providing information through reasoning. Use 2 is in supporting 
	information systems through models and Master Data Mgt and data quality analysis.    (2PGJ)
	SteveRay: @Norman: I didn't catch the third ingredient for a successful venture. I got: Stellar 
	team; great market concept.    (2PGK)
	Matthew West: @steve 3rd is Disruptive Technology Solution.    (2PGL)
	RexBrooks: Sorry I got here late, unavoidable.    (2PGM)
	RexBrooks: I think the point that both Denise and Chris have made is that we should focus on solving 
	a use-case problem rather than making a case for ontology per se.    (2PGN)
	RexBrooks: In fact how we solve their problems may require that we not make a point of using 
	semantics or ontology.    (2PGO)
	SteveRay: @Rex: Thus, our application framework should be very useful.    (2PGP)
	RexBrooks: @Steve: right!    (2PGQ)
	RexBrooks: @Steve: How do we incorporate the almost unanimous conclusions of this session into 
	application framework, a la siri?    (2PGR)
	RexBrooks: We have the chicken and egg catch 22 situation where we need the context but to get the 
	context we need the context to make the case.?    (2PGS)
	SteveRay: @Rex: I'd say: 1. Identify the audience. 2. Prepare the pitch for that audience. Siri's 
	audience was the VC community as far as I can tell.    (2PGT)
	SteveRay: I'm hoping the Application Framework will list each application type, each audience type, 
	and each value metric.    (2PGU)
	RexBrooks: Can we identify a bunch of problems (use-cases) we can solve? and then use that to 
	develop the application framework?    (2PGV)
	SteveRay: @Rex: That was one of the drivers behind the Use Case track - to find actual use cases and 
	find out what worked when making the case.    (2PGW)
	ToddSchneider: The particular stake holders will also impact which metrics are of interest.    (2PGX)
	SteveRay: I agree    (2PGY)
	RexBrooks: @Steve: then I think Todd's idea of a matrix is a good idea to produce a set of 
	solutions, audiences, money-trail, etc.    (2PGZ)
	RexBrooks: And, of course, metrics!    (2PH0)
	SteveRay: @Rex: Yes. I think it's a 3D cube: Application type; Audience type; Value metric    (2PH1)
	LeoObrst: I agree with Peter, and with Chris, because it is a matter of both accuracy and a matter 
	of trust.    (2PH2)
	PavithraKenjige: @Peter - on slide 4, it says CIO and System architects... It is the job of the 
	enterprise architects to create an Ontology for the organizations for it to be useful for 
	organizational wide interoperability. System Architects have narrower responsibilities limited to 
	systems that they are responsible for..    (2PH3)
	PeterYim: (added this response subsequently) @PavithraKenjige - I was using the term "system" in a 
	very broad sense - including that of enterprise systems, human systems, etc., and not just tools 
	systems or (computer-based) application systems.    (2PH4)
	PavithraKenjige: Application Architecture, would deal with application layer, Ontology should be 
	addressed when addressing information/ semantics of the information that application architecture 
	has to store or manipulate. For example, in a three tier architecture, or service oriented software 
	or application architecture, they have to work with the information they have to work with..    (2PH5)
	PhilMurray: Re: "Ontologies are overrated." Comparable to response to tech writer presenting a draft 
	to a manager for review: "I've done a little wordsmithing myself." To some people, Ontology 
	engineering looks like something very simple made more difficult and more expensive ... and not at 
	all providing something the rest of us can't do.    (2PH6)
	MikeBennett: Is one issue the "Prototype" problem you also see with software: people form a mental 
	picture of the thing they saw, and picture this whenever they hear the word "ontology".    (2PH7)
	TerryLongstreth: @Peter - I like your observation that "ontology" covers a range of strategic 
	concepts, from Controlled Vocabularies to Fully axiomatized logical frameworks (I hope I've 
	paraphrased that accurately). Do we need an enumeration of that spectrum, with target markets for 
	the individual strategies?    (2PH8)
	ToddSchneider: Have to go. Thank to all the speakers.    (2PH9)
	PeterYim: @TerryLongstreth - I believe we addressed this ("What is an Ontology") back in 2007 - see: 
	Ontology Summit 2007 - Ontology, Taxonomy, Folksonomy: Understanding the Distinctions - 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007    (2PHA)
	SteveRay: @Terry: That was the subject of our 2007 Ontology Summit. See 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007    (2PHB)
	TerryLongstreth: @Peter - I'm aware, but my point is that all of these are being called ontologies, 
	without a clear definition of how they should relate to each other. Was that discussed in 2007?    (2PHC)
	PeterYim: @Terry - in particular - the LeoObrst + MichaelGruninger "Ontology Framework" presentation 
	is enlightening - see: 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007_Framework_Session#nid10HH    (2PHD)
	PeterYim: @Terry - absolutely! hopefully, at this Summit (2011), we will take that one step forward 
	and associate the "right" type of ontology to specific business problems    (2PHE)
	RexBrooks: My line dropped as well, just as I was about to ask for input into a matrix that Todd and 
	I will put together, but I'd like to see a set of use-cases with specific problems we can solve so 
	we can identify the kind of application framework that will be needed and what metrics we can use to 
	measure how effectively we solve those problems.    (2PHF)
	AnneHunt: Sorry, I could only stay until 11. Good conversation--see you next time.    (2PHG)
	NicolaGuarino: Have to go. Great session!    (2PHH)
	PeterYim: Thanks, Anne ... thanks, Nicola ...    (2PHI)
	SteveRay: @Rex: Be sure to coordinate with the Track 1 team that is tasked with creating the 
	Application Framework.    (2PHJ)
	RexBrooks: @Steve: we should do that tomorrow.    (2PHK)
	SteveRay: @Rex: Indeed. And this is the focus of next Thursday's session: Integrating the Framework, 
	the Use cases, and the value metrics.    (2PHL)
	RexBrooks: @Peter: Exactly! We can focus on the solution to problems, and not worry about telling 
	everyone how we solve it.    (2PHM)
	PeterYim: MatthewWest suggested: "Ontology inside!"    (2PHN)
	RexBrooks: Ontology Onboard!    (2PHO)
	MikeBennett: Ontology enabled?    (2PHP)
	PavithraKenjige: Problem with selling the concept of Ontology is - we treat it as Semantic 
	technology dependent like RDF and Owl! I wonder it is necessary to limit it that way?    (2PHQ)
	PhilMurray: @Leo Obrst (paraphrased): "People will reinvent what ontologies do while deprecating 
	ontology engineering." Absolutely true. So KR people need to be associated strongly with something 
	that has high visibility and clearly understood impact. The attention to Watson could be a 
	springboard for that.    (2PHR)
	RexBrooks: @Leo: one thing we need to be careful about is using appropriate messages per audience. 
	When speaking to technicians, we can say things we shouldn't attempt with a non-technical, 
	managerial or venture capitalist audience.    (2PHS)
	PhilMurray: Gotta go. And thanks, Peter, for fixing my access. Good discussion, all.    (2PHT)
	PeterYim: Thank you for your participation and contribution, Phil ... bye    (2PHU)
	NormanWinarsky: Have to go. Thanks so much for the great discussion.    (2PHV)
	MatthewWest: Thank you very much Norman    (2PHW)
	MikeBennett: Some fantastic insights in today's session!    (2PHX)
	PavithraKenjige: thank you    (2PHY)
	PeterYim: Great session ... thank you all!    (2PHZ)
	PeterYim: - session ended: 11:32am PST --    (2PI0)
 -- end of in-session chat-transcript --    (2O5Q)

Audio Recording of this Session    (2O5W)

Additional Resources:    (2O65)

For the record ...    (2O6F)

How To Join (while the session is in progress)    (2O6G)

Conference Call Details    (2M8W)

Attendees:    (2M94)