From OntologPSMW

Jump to: navigation, search
[ ]


First proposed: Peter P. Yim / 2007.02.14     (1A)

A 5-Step Process     (1B)

  • Convener Grouping: Summit participants ("conveners") are dispersed into 'teams' (constituencies[1]), each representing major communities within the broader ontology community space     (1B1)
    • we can use a survey[2] to help identify which team an individual participant is affiliated with     (1B1A)
    • an analysis of the survey results can also provide clues as to whether we have balanced representation in different constituencies, and if not, remedial 'recruitment' actions may be taken     (1B1B)
    • a participant can choose to be in more than one team     (1B1C)
    • each team is encourage to elect a champion to help coordinate and track progress (this is optional, though)     (1B1D)
  • Understanding the Community Vocabulary: Each constituency will:     (1B2)
    • identify the context (vantage point) from which their inputs are derived; there may be needs to create further subdivisions. (For example: if "Biomedical informatics practitioners" is one such constituency, and it turns out that that the "bio-informaticists" and the medical-informaticists" don't share the same vocabularies, then they may want to subdivide and collect inputs for each of these sub-teams.     (1B2A)
    • (each team) or each sub-team will come up with the gloss for what do they mean when they use the term "ontology"     (1B2B)
    • identify other ontology-related terms that is in their constituency's common vocabulary,     (1B2C)
      • and come up with the gloss for each of these terms     (1B2C1)
      • also assess the Likelihood that someone may refer to each of these terms as "ontology"     (1B2C2)
    • identify conspicuous ontology (or ontology-like) artifacts[3] within their constituency     (1B2D)
    • the above is discovered through dialog over the [ontology-summit] discussion forum, aided (where necessary) by the survey[2] and continuously summarized and synthesized and posted to the wiki to keep all participants in sync.     (1B2E)
    • each constituency will complete and vet their glossary and list of ontology (or ontology-like) artifacts     (1B2F)

Resource & References     (1C)

[1] different constituencies - see under here     (1C1)

[2] survey - sample of a completed survey that may augment the above process - see: draft survey     (1C2)

[3] ontology (or ontology-like) artifacts for each constituency - see [ sample below]     (1C3)

    • we need both name and version (as different versions of the artifact with the same name may be placed differently in the categorization framework, and hence their typology may differ     (1C6A)

[4] categorization / typology framework - see: OntologySummit2007_FrameworksForConsideration     (1C7)

Survey questions (Draft-1)     (1D)

1. Respondent information - (name, organization, e-mail, phone)     (1D1)

2a. Constituency affiliation     (1D2)

[ ] Formal ontologists community     (1D3)

[ ] Semantic Web communities     (1D4)

[ ] Concept Map community     (1D5)

[ ] Topic Map community     (1D6)

[ ] SEARCH communities     (1D7)

[ ] Web 2.0 community     (1D8)

[ ] Thesauri community     (1D9)

[ ] Taxonomists community     (1D10)

[ ] Metadata communities     (1D11)

[ ] XML community     (1D12)

[ ] Applications Development community     (1D13)

[ ] System Architecture Communities     (1D14)

[ ] Biomedical communities     (1D15)

2b. Expertise self-assessment     (1D16)

3a. Remarks (sub-community identification; vantage point; other comments)     (1D20)

3b. Ontology-related Vocabulary from your community     (1D21)

(repeat, say, 8 times, allowing multiple item entries on the form)     (1D28)

Remarks: if a participant chooses to be in more than one team (represented in more than one constituency), he/she will complete and return more than one survey.     (1D29)

Sample of a completed survey (on the prototype form) - (Draft-1)     (1E)

This page has been migrated from the OntologWiki - Click here for original page     (1E2)