Re: collaborative ontology

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
>
>