<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://ontologforum.com/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=Talk%3AOntologySummit2020%2FWhence</id>
	<title>Talk:OntologySummit2020/Whence - Revision history</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://ontologforum.com/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=Talk%3AOntologySummit2020%2FWhence"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://ontologforum.com/index.php?title=Talk:OntologySummit2020/Whence&amp;action=history"/>
	<updated>2026-05-31T07:08:00Z</updated>
	<subtitle>Revision history for this page on the wiki</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.39.0</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://ontologforum.com/index.php?title=Talk:OntologySummit2020/Whence&amp;diff=3868&amp;oldid=prev</id>
		<title>imported&gt;JanetSinger at 08:11, 29 June 2020</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://ontologforum.com/index.php?title=Talk:OntologySummit2020/Whence&amp;diff=3868&amp;oldid=prev"/>
		<updated>2020-06-29T08:11:25Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;New page&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div&gt;I do like the Gutierrez and Sequeda approach of:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1) A short characterization of the issue of using technology to realize value from Data and Knowledge (we could use a ‘semantic technology value proposition’ graph and John’s hexagon);&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2) Then have ‘decades’, with something like their accomplishments and foci followed by ‘realizations’ and ‘limitations’;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They cover ‘Data’, ‘Knowledge’, and ‘Knowledge + Data’. That’s a good start at articulating the elements, but it should go a little farther. In particular, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1) It conflates the conceptual knowledge or theory about a domain necessary for an agent to operate in a way an observer would deem ‘intelligent’ (Newell’s criterion as emphasized by Musen) with the logical theory used to *formalize* the knowledge into a formal theory so it can be validated and a machine can operate on it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2) Along with that conflation, they don’t emphasize enough the software/agent/program/algorithm that will use the cleaned/organized/processed data as an inseparable complement (dual?) to the data. As David Eddy just wrote in his email to Ram, “data doesn’t exist without software”. This software hare a strong logical aspect, but it is not identical to logic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3) John’s  http://jfsowa.com/talks/eswc.pdf  (and his other presentations) can help us think about how to frame the elements of the history in a way that ends up with CLIP and DOL as the KG/ontologies state of the art.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4) We do need to work on a characterization of ontology beyond what John has there as “ Ontology is a catalog of words and the kinds of things they refer to.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=============&lt;br /&gt;
Notes from 20200623&lt;br /&gt;
1) Possible inclusions from john’s graphics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MOF&lt;br /&gt;
Ikris project&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2) Also http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/semnet.htm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3) Understanding the history requires understanding the adversarial reality of standards development (large vs small commercial interests and lock-in; academics/theorists with different specialization, etc. - primitives vs space cadets)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4) Semantic Web taken over by theoreticians, DL group&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5) European/Extended Semantic Web conference&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6) Ontologies as conceptual schema: SRKB, etc., research died after the semantic web gave us OWL, and that’s ontologies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7) Joseph Goguen “Throwing Algebraic Flowers …” paper; Till Mossakowski’s work. (Message for applied category theorists from JS “They either hang together or they’ll hang separately”)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>imported&gt;JanetSinger</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>