[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] Ontology sponsoring/marketing-sense question?

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "DonEMitchell" <DonEMitchell@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 09:09:36 -0800
Message-id: <CMEFIIDHCLKEHBMAHPMOCECPCGAA.DonEMitchell@xxxxxxxxxx>
That's very significant about the plain-English grammar project --Thanks,
Adrian.    (01)

It's also a significant fact that a changeover will require use adoption.    (02)

The adoption of natural language as a computational aid seems to be the Holy
Grail of computational purists that regard the quality of a human/machine
interface.  No doubt a natural symbolic visual interface would be another
difficult study.    (03)

Civic events and their political interstitial communications seem to have a
ready market-gap afforded toward group-aware
grammatical-interconnected-live-community.    (04)

Them and the military, too.    (05)

Have any a desire to form a focus group to investigate a municipal project
opportunity?    (06)

And... I have another marketing question...    (07)

Can any science survive a startup phase if that fledgling science courts
civil respect and military respect at the same time?  Can a business plan
successfully span the love/power separation?    (08)

So, to plan a project that is scaled to be multiplied as a proven,
successful market package to the other 3200 American counties in desperate
need of similar community heartbeat seems to entail an inevitable
requirement of Federal considerations.    (09)

However, and the point of my question, can a successful plan be started up
across the divide of top interests, and find a politically correct harbor to
survive a corporate opportunity?    (010)

Can a business plan be made that courts both civil and military? Or is this
plan-suicide?    (011)

Warm regards,
Regular Dynamics of Sequim    (012)

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Adrian
Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 6:29 PM
To: adampease@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Re: [regrep-cc-review] What if? CCRIM =>
CCOWL    (013)

Adam --    (014)

You wrote.... FWIW, my take is that topic maps are yet another syntax
specification, lacking any logical semantics. So OWL, KIF or any other
logical language is appropriate for capturing semantics (meaning), while
topic maps are not. One can convert syntax and labels from one to the
other, but semantics will be lost.    (015)

You may be interested in the "Semantic Web Presentation" at
www.reengineeringllc.com .  It argues that there is yet another dimension
to "semantics" -- namely that it's going to be necessary to use plain
English computationally on top of whatever logical language is chosen.    (016)

The examples in the presentation can be run (and changed) by pointing a
browser to the same site.    (017)

Hope this is of interest.     Cheers,  -- Adrian    (018)

                                            INTERNET BUSINESS LOGIC    (019)

                                              www.reengineeringllc.com    (020)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (021)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>