View source for OntologySummit2007 Survey/JackPark

= [[OntologySummit2007|Ontology Summit 2007]]: [[OntologySummit2007_Survey]] individual responses  =

== [[OntologySummit2007_Survey/Response]] input from [[JackPark|Jack Park]]   ==

'''''Please make sure you refer to the [[OntologySummit2007|Ontology Summit 2007]] &amp; [[OntologySummit2007_Survey]] pages for the full context of the input. &nbsp;&nbsp;''''' 

----

Question 1 Respondant Info 

Name:  Jack Park 

Question 2 Affiliated - 
I am affiliated with the following constituencies/communities  (please check all that apply) 

[  ]  Formal ontology communities

[X]  Semantic Web communities

[  ]  Linguistic communities

[X]  Concept Map community

[X]  Topic Map community

[  ]  SEARCH communities

[X]  Web 2.0 communities

[  ]  Thesauri community

[  ]  Taxonomy communities

[  ]  Metadata communities

[  ]  XML communities

[X]  Applications Development, Software Engineering and Information Model communities

[X]  System Architecture communities

[X]  Biomedical communities

[  ]  Standards Development communities

[  ]  Other (please specify):  (Not Answered) 

Question 2a Representing - 
I represent the perspective of the following constituency/community (please pick one; if you want to provide input from more than one perspective, please return a separate form): 

[  ]  1. Formal ontology communities

[  ]  2. Semantic Web communities

[  ]  3. Linguistic communities

[  ]  4. Concept Map community

[X]  5. Topic Map community

[  ]  6. SEARCH communities

[  ]  7. Web 2.0 communities

[  ]  8. Thesauri community

[  ]  9. Taxonomy communities

[  ]  10. Metadata communities

[  ]  11. XML communities

[  ]  12. Applications Development, Software Engineering and Information Model communities

[  ]  13. System Architecture communities

[  ]  14. Biomedical communities

[  ]  15. Standards Development communities

[  ]  16. Other (please specify):  (Not Answered) 

Question 2b Specific Community or sub-community I am affiliated with:  (Not Answered) 

Question 2c Expertise Self Assessment - 
With respect to the perspective you are representing and providing input from, I am a/an: 

[  ]  1. informed layman

[X]  2. practitioner

[  ]  3. expert

[  ]  4. other (please specify):  (Not Answered) 

Question 3a Ontology Value -  

"Great value. Ontology engineering offers expert opinions 

on how the world is wired up." 

Question 3b Ontology Issues -  

"Expert opinions vary. That is an issue. It is often said that 

there is no single "upper ontology" that can satisfy all 

communities of practice. Indeed, we sought to craft one at 

<nowiki>VerticalNet</nowiki> (a prior employer), but, we were dealing not 

with "all" communities of practice, but a select few communities. 

With constraints, an upper ontology can be successful. But notice 

this fact: the upper ontology and the community ontologies were to be 

crafted by the same group of experts. That is not an open system. 

It is closed and will be as complete, as accurate, and as correct as 

that community is capable of making it so. In the larger 

universe of discourse, expert opinions can be problematic, 

particularly where experts disagree. I don't have a particular community 

in mind. My opinions speak to the needs of all possible communities. 

Where one is thinking in terms of some specific community, my thoughts 

may not be of value." 

Question 3c Ontology Problems -  

"Expert opinions, world views vary. Specifically, those views and 

opinions carry with them truth values that may vary among sources. 

The problem is this: all opinions and views should be shared and 

made available, without prior bias of any kind. That problem exists 

in world matters, not necessarily in individual closed communities." 

Question 3d Corresponding Solutions -  

"Architectures that map opinions and expertise together appear to be 

an appropriate solution/technology. The key point here is that said 

architectures perform the mapping without bias, in a loss-free way. 

This implies that disparate world views need to be brought together. 

Recall my earlier statement that this might not apply in closed 

communities where appeal to some specific brand of expertise is bought 

and paid for. But, in the larger picture of social sensemaking in 

world-class problems,  I think that the present U.S. government's leaders 

are making it quite clear that there is room for dissenting opinions 

and world views. Those are the problems spaces/communities where I believe 

my suggestions apply. I have long been saying that topic maps of one sort 

or another offer candidate solutions to the problems I have outlined here. 

Even the simpler "concept maps" can make a difference, but I would argue 

that the higher-degree of mapping achieved when  you are able to represent 

the associations between subjects as subjects themselves (not available 

in concept maps, available in conceptual graphs and in topic maps) renders 

the universe of discourse more capable of being dissected, discussed, and 

even corrected where appropriate." 

Question 4aGlossary - 
Ontology-related 'vocabulary' and representative 'artifact' from your constituency or community: 

Term:  (Not Answered)

Gloss:  (Not Answered)

Reference (citation/url):  (Not Answered)

Artifact (name/version):  (Not Answered)

- Artifact Ref. (url):  (Not Answered) 

Question 4a1 Called An Ontology - 
On a scale of 1 to 5, (where 1 means totally unlikely and 5 means almost always), would the above term or artifact be referred to as an "ontology" in your community? 

[  ]  1. 1 - totally unlikely

[  ]  2. 2 - rarely

[  ]  3. 3 - sometimes

[  ]  4. 4 - quite often

[  ]  5. 5 - almost always 

Question 4a2 Additional Remarks -  

"(Not Answered)" 

Question 4bGlossary - 
Ontology-related 'vocabulary' and representative 'artifact' from your constituency or community: 

Term:  (Not Answered)

Gloss:  (Not Answered)

Reference (citation/url):  (Not Answered)

Artifact (name/version):  (Not Answered)

- Artifact Ref. (url):  (Not Answered) 

Question 4b1 Called An Ontology - 
On a scale of 1 to 5, (where 1 means totally unlikely and 5 means almost always), would the above term or artifact be referred to as an "ontology" in your community? 

[  ]  1. 1 - totally unlikely

[  ]  2. 2 - rarely

[  ]  3. 3 - sometimes

[  ]  4. 4 - quite often

[  ]  5. 5 - almost always 

Question 4b2 Additional Remarks -  

"(Not Answered)" 

Question 4cGlossary - 
Ontology-related 'vocabulary' and representative 'artifact' from your constituency or community: 

Term:  (Not Answered)

Gloss:  (Not Answered)

Reference (citation/url):  (Not Answered)

Artifact (name/version):  (Not Answered)

- Artifact Ref. (url):  (Not Answered) 

Question 4c1 Called An Ontology - 
On a scale of 1 to 5, (where 1 means totally unlikely and 5 means almost always), would the above term or artifact be referred to as an "ontology" in your community? 

[  ]  1. 1 - totally unlikely

[  ]  2. 2 - rarely

[  ]  3. 3 - sometimes

[  ]  4. 4 - quite often

[  ]  5. 5 - almost always 

Question 4c2 Additional Remarks -  

"(Not Answered)" 

Question 4dGlossary - 
Ontology-related 'vocabulary' and representative 'artifact' from your constituency or community: 

Term:  (Not Answered)

Gloss:  (Not Answered)

Reference (citation/url):  (Not Answered)

Artifact (name/version):  (Not Answered)

- Artifact Ref. (url):  (Not Answered) 

Question 4d1 Called An Ontology - 
On a scale of 1 to 5, (where 1 means totally unlikely and 5 means almost always), would the above term or artifact be referred to as an "ontology" in your community? 

[  ]  1. 1 - totally unlikely

[  ]  2. 2 - rarely

[  ]  3. 3 - sometimes

[  ]  4. 4 - quite often

[  ]  5. 5 - almost always 

Question 4d2 Additional Remarks -  

"(Not Answered)" 

Question 4eGlossary - 
Ontology-related 'vocabulary' and representative 'artifact' from your constituency or community: 

Term:  (Not Answered)

Gloss:  (Not Answered)

Reference (citation/url):  (Not Answered)

Artifact (name/version):  (Not Answered)

- Artifact Ref. (url):  (Not Answered) 

Question 4e1 Called An Ontology - 
On a scale of 1 to 5, (where 1 means totally unlikely and 5 means almost always), would the above term or artifact be referred to as an "ontology" in your community? 

[  ]  1. 1 - totally unlikely

[  ]  2. 2 - rarely

[  ]  3. 3 - sometimes

[  ]  4. 4 - quite often

[  ]  5. 5 - almost always 

Question 4e2 Additional Remarks -  

"(Not Answered)" 

Question 4fGlossary - 
Ontology-related 'vocabulary' and representative 'artifact' from your constituency or community: 

Term:  (Not Answered)

Gloss:  (Not Answered)

Reference (citation/url):  (Not Answered)

Artifact (name/version):  (Not Answered)

- Artifact Ref. (url):  (Not Answered) 

Question 4f1 Called An Ontology - 
On a scale of 1 to 5, (where 1 means totally unlikely and 5 means almost always), would the above term or artifact be referred to as an "ontology" in your community? 

[  ]  1. 1 - totally unlikely

[  ]  2. 2 - rarely

[  ]  3. 3 - sometimes

[  ]  4. 4 - quite often

[  ]  5. 5 - almost always 

Question 4f2 Additional Remarks -  

"(Not Answered)" 

Question 4gGlossary - 
Ontology-related 'vocabulary' and representative 'artifact' from your constituency or community: 

Term:  (Not Answered)

Gloss (definition):  (Not Answered)

Reference (citation/url):  (Not Answered)

Artifact (name/version):  (Not Answered)

- Artifact Ref. (url):  (Not Answered) 

Question 4g1 Called An Ontology - 
On a scale of 1 to 5, (where 1 means totally unlikely and 5 means almost always), would the above term or artifact be referred to as an "ontology" in your community? 

[  ]  1. 1 - totally unlikely

[  ]  2. 2 - rarely

[  ]  3. 3 - sometimes

[  ]  4. 4 - quite often

[  ]  5. 5 - almost always 

Question 4g2 Additional Remarks -  

"(Not Answered)" 

Question 4hGlossary - 
Ontology-related 'vocabulary' and representative 'artifact' from your constituency or community: 

Term:  (Not Answered)

Gloss:  (Not Answered)

Reference (citation/url):  (Not Answered)

Artifact (name/version):  (Not Answered)

- Artifact Ref. (url):  (Not Answered) 

Question 4h1 Called An Ontology - 
On a scale of 1 to 5, (where 1 means totally unlikely and 5 means almost always), would the above term or artifact be referred to as an "ontology" in your community? 

[  ]  1. 1 - totally unlikely

[  ]  2. 2 - rarely

[  ]  3. 3 - sometimes

[  ]  4. 4 - quite often

[  ]  5. 5 - almost always 

Question 4h2 Additional Remarks -  

"I presently am not in a position to think of myself as a "convener" of this convention. I would love to see it be successful, but my definition of success is, historically speaking, not closely related to that which prevails in this tribe." 

Question 5 Confirm Participation - where,  

a 'convener' is a participant who provides substantive contribution to the [[OntologySummit2007|Ontology Summit 2007]] 

initiative (through the online discourse, this survey, and other events leading to or during 

the workshops and the written communique process), and  

a 'co-sponsor' is an organization who is providing technical or funding support (e.g. supporting 

member(s) of its technical staff to participate as a 'convener'), and/or endorsing the objective 

of this [[OntologySummit2007|Ontology Summit 2007]], 

[  ]  I agree that my name can be listed as a 'convener' of [[OntologySummit2007|Ontology Summit 2007]]

[  ]  I will consider endorsing the [[OntologySummit2007|Ontology Summit 2007]] communique. Please send it to me for 

review when it is ready. I will confirm my endorsement after the review.

[  ]  I confirm that you may list my organization as a 'co-sponsor' for 

[[OntologySummit2007|Ontology Summit 2007]] (details below). 

Question 5a Co-Sponsor confirmation:  

Organization Name:  (Not Answered)

Link (url) to Logo:  (Not Answered) 

----





[[Category:WorkSpace]]    [[Category:OntologySummit]]    [[Category:OntologySummit2007]]