OntologySummit2010: Pertinent Questions    (257E)

This is a draft workspace to help us identify the pertinent questions that we want this summit to help answer. These questions are intended to help us focus our discussion and prepare survey instruments to collect input from the community ...    (257F)

OntologySummit2010: Description, Goals and Objectives    (26OM)

Increasingly, major national and international projects centered on ontology technology are being advanced by governments and by scientific and industrial organizations. This brings a growing need for ontology expertise and thus for new methods and institutions for the training of ontologists. The 2010 Ontology Summit will explore strategies to address this need in terms of curriculum, establishment of new career tracks, role of ontology support organizations and funding agencies, as well as training in the analysis and comparison of methodologies for designing, maintaining, implementing, testing and applying ontologies and associated tools and resources.    (26ON)

Pertinent Questions identified:    (257G)

(mostly from input of the track champions)    (257H)

Suggested Questionnaire from ArturoSanchez-AntonyGalton et al.    (2598)

ref. http://interop.cim3.net/forum//ontology-summit-org/2009-12/msg00024.html    (2599)

Quality Track Questions:    (25C3)

(from FabianNeuhaus with comment from Leo - ref. exchange    (25C4)

Suggested Survey Questions for Requirements Track - Present, from Amanda Vizedom    (25J9)

Objective    (281G)

To discover and clarify requirements for ontologist training, from the perpective of consumers of such training: trainees, employers, and others who might rely on the quality of such training and/or the reliability of any certification it produces.    (27UE)

This survey is designed to elicit information about the knowledge and skills ontologists need, or are expected to have, in a variety of working contexts. In addition to harvesting such knowledge from currently working ontologists, the survey extends inquiry to other potential stake-holders in the training of future ontologists: those who might look to such training as a solution to changing job requirements or market conditions, and those who hire, manage, evaluate, or otherwise depend upon the work of ontologists. By such broad-ranging requirements gathering, the Ontology Summit Organizing Committee hopes to produce a clearer, more realistic picture of the needs to be met by training of ontologists.    (27UF)

Additionally, the Organizing Committee is deeply aware of varied and multidisciplinary nature of ontology today. A single set of requirements, satisfying the needs and expectations of all current working contexts, is unlikely. In the design of ontology training curricula, it will therefore be important to know not only what content might be covered, but also how the elements of that content relate to various kinds of working situations and tasks that trained ontologists might face. That is, it is good to have as comprehensive a training menu as is feasible; it is even better to understand how to prioritize content and assemble curricula from that menu to suit particular training needs.    (27UG)

Special Instructions    (281H)

The questions below can be divided into two main groups: those that elicit information about ontologist training needs and those that elicit information about the context in which the these needs are present. Any genuine responses to the needs questions will help to fill out the picture of needs and expectations. However, the survey will be most effective if each set of answers to the needs questions comes from a consistent point of view and a working context. Many of those we hope will respond have multiples roles and working contexts from which perspectives you might answer. You are encouraged to take the survey multiple times, each time utilizing the initial questions about your organization and role to roughly identify the point of view and working context with which your remaining answers are best associated. Your cooperation in this investigation, including your willingness to specify context as just described, are greatly appreciated and of great potential benefit to our field's self-understanding.    (27UH)

Therefore, if you have more than one relationship to Ontologists (e.g., are one, hire them, train them, etc.) and/or have such a relationship with more than one organization (e.g., employer, clients, academic affiliation), please select one such role/relationship and complete the survey with consistently from the perspective of that role/relationship. You are encouraged to then repeat the survey for as many such role/relationships as you have and deem relevantly different. In 1a you are asked to to provide the organization and role for this set of answers; differing responses here are sufficient for us to distinguish duplicate from intentionally varied submissions. Thank you.    (27UI)

Final Note: Throughout this survey, please interpret “ontology” to mean formal ontology, a field involving formal representation of knowledge organization structures or, alternatively, formal modeling of concepts and relationships, often for computational purposes. In contrast, "ontology" herein is *not* intended to refer to the traditional philosophical subfield of ontology, also called "metaphysics" and often paired or contrasted with epistemology. Correspondingly, "ontologist" should be interepreted to mean a practitioner of the contemporary, formal field. If you are involved in the philosophical field but not the formal, representational field, please keep this disambiguation in mind and answer "no" when asked whether you are a practicing ontologist.    (27UJ)

Questions    (281I)

Florescu-Yim questionnaire:    (25AG)

Questions to elicit Developments for the RTDelphi:    (25M4)

Please provide the most probable answer, in your opinion, to each of the questions below. From your answers, we will distill the "developments" (statements) that will help get an outlook on the future of ontology and ontologists.    (25MB)

16 Developments selected for use in the RTDelphi Study:    (2591)

Ref.: Syntheses of the OntologySummit2010 Panel Session-1 Input    (28F9)

  1. on a global basis, at least 10 universities have a Ontology Science department    (27BU)
  2. on a global basis, at least 10 universities have a Ontology Engineering department    (27BV)
  3. on a global basis, at least 10 universities have cross-disciplinary programs in Ontology Science and/or Engineering department offering Master degrees (for career professionals) or PhD degrees (for researchers)    (27BW)
  4. at least 5% of all professionals in system architecture, systems design and engineering, software engineering and information technology will be required to have proper ontology training (and a larger number will need some background in ontology)    (27BX)
  5. accredited programs are available from educational institutions that train certified professionals Ontologists (with the kind of standings that other professionals like scientists, engineers, architects, lawyers, doctors, nurses, pharmacists, etc.)    (27BY)
  6. the terms and the disciplines of "Formal Ontology" and "Ontology in Information Science" are properly understood by academia and industry (in related fields)    (27BZ)
  7. the "ontology" word, and teaching of the basics of it, shows up in secondary/high school education    (27C1)
  8. the "ontology" word, and teaching of the basics of it, shows up in primary/elementary school education    (27C2)
  9. the discipline of "Ontology" is properly understood by everyday people (the way disciplines like mathematics, physics, psychology, music, art, etc. is understood)    (27CA)
  10. International Standards are regularly being developed and expressed, BOTH in a natural language and as an ontology    (27C3)
  11. persistent repositories of quality ontologies are available for professional and public use (and they are being regularly used)    (27C4)
  12. compelling tools that allow everyday data and information to be "ontologized" by everyday people emerge ... suggest what those tools might be    (27C5)
  13. compelling "ontology enabled" applications emerge ... suggest what they might be    (27C6)
  14. compelling evidence of the benefits of "Ontology" emerge ... suggest what that might be    (27C7)
  15. significant increase (10x the current level or better; assuming current level is non-zero) in R&D funding is put into developing Ontology science and engineering    (27C8)
  16. a major breakthrough is made in the field of Ontology    (27C9)

The online Surveys and RTDelphi study - see: OntologySummit2010_Survey    (2592)

Resources and Reference:    (2594)

Remarks & other input:    (2595)