I have had a couple of offline discussions about what factors we might think about when we think about engaged KO (eKO). I've also had one comment posted. From these sources I've started a list below (still incomplete). Do these resonate with anyone?
1. Implementation by groups previously without KO (in some contexts this is a big deal, but still need particulars on how we show evidence that this is *positive* change)
2. Division of labour statistics - how work in government and universities is divided (is theoretical at this point, requires data or argument to be seen as evidence in my opinion)
3. Infrastructure decisions based on KO - can airports run ontologies based on a particular set of methods and not others? (ongoing discussion in ontology engineering I've been told)
4. Economic latitude - saving money through KO so that it can be spent elsewhere (some work has been done on this I think)
5. The stuff of human flourishing - what KO does to allow for human flourishing... (very vague)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
About 2: Division of labour statistics: how work in government and universities is divided, you say we need evidences. Here is my case:
A school mate of mine at the School of Biology was very interested in ethnobotany (how native people know and use plants). He spent months in Ladakh, India, to study this in the field. But our university, like many others, did not have any class in ethnobotany, while it had e.g. in phytogeography (how plant species occur and are associated in various ecosystems). Why? IMO this is a KO choice...
Claudio:
I see! Yes, this can be seen as a KO choice, I agree. So there are a couple of things that we can identify, perhaps, as evidence here: (1) costs in self-organizing this knowledge [trip to India], and availability of this particular division of labour [as a viable option for your friend to study - so a political presence and identity acknowledged] . Perhaps there are others too. Thanks!
Post a Comment