W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-eiif@w3.org > August 2008

Re: collaborative ontology

From: <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:41:14 -0400
Message-ID: <c09b00eb0808101841s3e73b7dfla9adc12e462c8e2c@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ryan Lanham" <rlanham1963@gmail.com>
Cc: public-xg-eiif <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>

Hi Ryan

What we are doing here is cutting edge too... if we dont trivialize it

What you say is true, however I dont think this group has a hierarchy,
we are all members. Or you are referring to to the hierachies in the

Collaborative Ontology methodologies are the latest stuff in this
field, albeit still some experimental, like us - a pefect match, and
the way forward for a group like ours who is struggling to come to
terms with different views of the world we are all looking at.

Using the right tools is essential to any trade. I dont expect
everyone in this group has researched and applied ontology
methodologies (I have done a bit), so let me say in a nutshell what
needs to be done

Different stakeholders are likely to have different perspective/views of:
what is being represented (I am thinking of the EM process, gavin is
sthinking of EM static directory)
how it is being represented
(say, organisational view vs other)
This will result in a different picture being painted by each stakeholder
The aggregation of such views is likely to be closer to reality than
any single view

So, a metamodel (the highest possible abstraction of a model, max
generalization) is used as pivotal framework of reference
Each view is mapped against the metamodel

Conflicts are resoved by increasing abstraction (examples later)
The resulting picture is likely to be a polymorphic, flexible set of
view that canbe combined to suit different sets of stakeholders
requirements, and can be expanded and refined with time

In practical terms, we each depict our model of the EM process, then
develop the aspect of it that is closer to us, then we find a way of
matching them all

something like that

On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have tried to say similar things.  It is a difficult area because it
> sounds less than serious to some.  I think it is cutting edge management
> talk and extremely important in FOSS areas in particular.  It is hard
> though.  We rely on the mechanics of hierarchy.  Collaboration sounds
> inefficient...fuzzy, weak.  What we are now realizing more and more in
> management and organizational theory is that the learning environment of the
> unstructured internet is influencing (I'd say dissolving) the structure of
> our hierarchies.  It then becomes a feedback loop.
> Those who fight that with the hope of control can console themselves with
> the idea of effectiveness and efficiency--very excellent ideals.  Some day I
> suspect there will be a tipping point where distributed processes outweigh
> structure in many, if not most, cases.  FOSS, I thought, would lead here.  I
> have been surprised at the centralization of some of the projects...again,
> the motivations are valid and sound to fight these tendencies.  I think they
> are inevitable as collaboration outweighs organizational control
> efficiencies.
> Still, there is a management choice, a board choice, to lessen control and
> hierarchy and increase collaboration.  That is a difficult leap of faith.
> Movement toward collaboration is more likely to be grass roots, I have come
> to believe.  School districts don't change.  Teachers do.
> Ryan Lanham
> rlanham1963@gmail.com
> Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 10:42 AM, <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Folks
>> Just thinking.
>> It is normal to have different views of the world, we must live with that
>> (My view of the world must not preclude yours either, and viceversa)
>> Altough the EIIF group mission statements 'avoids' the explicit use of
>> the world 'ontology'  it is clear that this incubator was born
>> following
>> the requirement for a semantic framework,  which is what we call ontology
>> A discussion that Chamindra and I started long time ago on a different
>> list.
>> There are different methods to develop ontology collaboratively, and I
>> am tempted to suggest that we start working on our task with the
>> adequate methodological
>> approach, so that we can achieve the best possible result in
>> time,given the resources. By avoiding the use of the word ontology we
>> are avoding entering in the crux of the matter/
>> search for 'collaborative ontology'
>> Two efforts that I am marginally familiar with are
>> view based ontology,
>> http://www.myontology.org/
>> and there are others
>> This would enable us to produce deliverables that can be used by
>> everyone  without necessarily having to agree on things
>> Thoughts?
>> --
>> Paola Di Maio

Paola Di Maio
School of IT
Received on Monday, 11 August 2008 01:41:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:01 UTC