Roy,
Your site is quite interesting. In some sense, it serves as a reminder
of various sites and visions looking for some sort of public information
commons. I am reminded of Rod Welch's SDS system [1], and of the vision
that Patrick Durusau and I put forth to Ontolog [2] regarding federation
of world views. (01)
In another sense, your site serves as a candidate for further discussion
within this community, indeed, within this thread, which is related to
merging of information resources. One of the points Patrick and I made
in regards to federation is that there should be no a priori
conceptual/ontological bias made in the merge process; rather the
determinant for merging is that of subject identity -- and nothing else!
It strikes me that your website makes a strong case for a global public
information commons, one not at all laden with the ontological biases of
any given belief system or judgments made a priori on goodness of
conceptual world views. (02)
I am inclined to suspect that such a global public information commons
is going to be a global effort: no single server or server farm is going
to satisfy the many needs. Federated information resources, by way of
comparison to, say, any of the major search engines, and much closer to
Wikipedia, will best be served as public trusts with open source IT
assets. I suspect that, within that framework, there are valid business
models that can make participation worth the effort. (03)
Jack
[1] http://welchco.com/
[2] http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2006_04_27 (04)
Roy Roebuck wrote:
> Perhaps we need what I have proposed for the past 24 years, one world
>information system, encompassing what is now called the web, semantic web,
>corporate networks, government networks, private networks, etc. See
>http://www.one-world-is.com.
>
> Roy
>
>
> CommIT Enterprises, Inc.
> Enterprise Architecture for Enterprise Management, Security, and Knowledge
>
>
> Roy Roebuck III
> Senior Enterprise Architect
> 2231 Crystal Drive, Ste 501
> Arlingon, VA 22202
> roy.roebuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> mobile:
> fax:
> direct:
> +1 (703)-598-2351
> +1 (703) 486-5540
> +1 (703) 486-5506
>
>
>
>
> Add me to your address book...
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
>Owen_Ambur@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 2:50 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: Database and Ontologies [was-Re: [ontolog-forum] A problem]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Several years ago at an eGov conference in Washington, DC, Larry Ellison
> (being Larry Ellison) made the intentionally provocative statement: "We
> sell databases and you (government agencies) are buying too many of them."
>
> His argument was that we should be implementing *larger* databases --
> Oracle databases, of course.
>
> However, I would take his argument one step further to suggest that we only
> need ONE "database", i.e., the Web populated with valid XML instance
> documents.
>
> Needless to say, I too am overstating the case to be provocative. However,
> I do believe there is much truth in my argument.
>
> Owen Ambur
> Co-Chair, xmlCoP http://xml.gov/
> Project Manager, ET.gov http://et.gov/
>
>
>
>
>
> "Peter P. Yim"
> <peter.yim@xxxxxx
> om> To
> Sent by: "[ontolog-forum]"
> ontolog-forum-bou <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> nces@xxxxxxxxxxxx cc
> .net
> Subject
> Database and Ontologies [was-Re:
> 08/15/2006 11:25 [ontolog-forum] A problem]
> AM
>
>
> Please respond to
> "[ontolog-forum]
> "
> <ontolog-forum@on
> tolog.cim3.net>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you for the post, Tanya.
>
> 1. Problem with registration: I'll try to resolve this with you
> offline.
>
> 2. Database and Ontologies:
>
> > [TM] I am very interested to participate in discussions and
> > research about merging databases and ontologies, bringing
> > database practices to ontological development and other
> > issues related to databases and ontologies.
>
> [ppy] presumably, (almost) anything related to ontologies would
> be within scope for us at Ontolog. Obviously how database and
> ontologies relate to each other in the next generation
> semantic/knowledge-based applications would be an area well worth
> delving into.
>
> Let's find out who else is interested ... ANYONE?
> Like what Tatiana has done here, if anyone is interested or
> working in this area, please indicate by responding to this
> thread, and suggest what you want to see and/or what you can
> bring to the table, as far as this topic is concerned.
>
> ... Being a community of practice (ref:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CommunityofPractice) this
> topic will get addressed if there is adequate interest and energy
> behind it from the community.
>
> Thanks you for highlighting this important topic, Tanya.
>
> Regards. =ppy
> --
>
>
> Tatiana Malyuta wrote Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:51:30 -0400:
>> Peter,
>>
>> I am terribly sorry to bother you with such silly things. I wanted to
>> participate in the conference calls and many times tried to register at
>> the site that is in the bottom of your invitation emails. However, I
>> failed to do so. I emailed the Customer Support of the site, but haven't
>> recieved any response. That is why I haven't participated and did not
>> respond to the invitations.
>>
>> Maybe you could tell me what possibly I am doing wrong.
>>
>> In general, I am very interested to participate in discussions and
>> research about merging databases and ontologies, bringing database
>> practices to ontological development and other issues related to
>> databases and ontologies. Can you direct my here? Please disregard if
>> you are not involved with this.
>>
>> Sorry again and thank you,
>>
>> Tanya
>> (05)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (06)
|