ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] Fwd: Appropriate to discuss [was - Re: ontospam]

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Dennis L. Thomas" <DLThomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:10:28 -0700
Message-id: <4D6EDD47-1422-4594-88C5-8E726E9608B3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Peter,

Our software is proprietary.  

In response to Azamat's statement, "I had some communication with Richard B. and found him as an open-minded person, committed to advancing the cause of knowledge systems."  I must agree.  Dick is a large, unbounded thinker.  Teaching is in his blood as much as any participant on this forum.  It is a deep desire of his to share what he has learned - or at least, some of this discoveries and secrets.  The rest is meant for the marketplace.

If he chooses to respond, I am sure he will. 

Dennis
 

On Sep 17, 2007, at 3:44 PM, Peter Yim wrote:

Azamat,

Thank you for the suggestion. Believe I did ask Dennis previously
whether his software/technology is open or proprietary. I don't
believe he responded in the affirmative.

Let me ask again, politely,

Dennis, is the system/technology you are discussing ("Mark 3") a "free
software" or "open sourced" ('free' or 'open' as defined in our IPR
?

Regards.  =ppy

P.S. Azamat, to make sure we don't misunderstand each other, may I
politely request that you review how the "free software", "open
source" and "open content" licenses are defined in our IPR Policy.
Thanks.  =ppy
--


On 9/17/07, Azamat <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Peter,
If politely asked they might open their knowledge technology secrets, thus
enriching our discussion. As i remember, I had some communication with
Richard B. and found him as an open-minded person, committed to advancing
the cause of knowledge systems.
Azamat


----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Yim" <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 11:19 PM
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Appropriate to discuss [was - Re: ontospam]


Azamat,

[AA]  Dennis Thomas must be a good researcher, maybe, with
some funny ideas about semantics, ontology, and knowledge.

[ppy]  maybe, but that is irrelevant ... as long as he has opted to
keep his technology and work proprietary (and not openly sharing it in
accordance with our 'open' IPR Policy), it makes it inappropriate
material for discussion in this 'open forum' (except during 'specially
arranged' events/settings.)

Regards.  =ppy

Peter Yim
Co-convener, Ontolog
--


On 9/17/07, Azamat <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It seems the forum needs not only more professional focusing on ontology
but
some patience to others positions, worldviews, and projects.

Dennis Thomas must be a good researcher, maybe, with some funny ideas
about
semantics, ontology, and knowledge. And he looks to be frank promoting
his
project as much as it is persistently done with CL, IKL, etc.
As a private investigator, he might say more interesting ideas than the
cold
and stale things one used to hear from the academic investigators.
It should be observed that most radical breakthroughs the science and
technology expect from private researchers, like William Dobelle, who was
the first neuroscientist, inventing an operative brain implant, a
brain-computer interface, to restore sight, acquired blindness.
The same rule applies to fundamental ontology and its critical
technological
application, semantic web.

Azamat Abdoullaev


----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@xxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 8:22 PM
Subject: [ontolog-forum] ontospam (was: Re: Current Semantic Web Layer
pizza
(was ckae))


Folks,

Allow me to suggest that we refrain from responding to such obviously
nonsensical and vacuous expressions of institutionalized ignorance as
the recent postings on this thread. My response, after some cursory
checking to verify that the claims are indeed as nonsensical as they
sound (in this case, for example, the fact that the world of Thomas,
Ballard and KFI is entirely self-referring and self-contained, with
no connection to any scholarly or published work for the last 20
years; and that if its claims were even partly correct, it would by
now have put Oracle out of business) is to simply create an email
filter to auto-trash such stuff. Arguing with these people is like
arguing with creationists about evolution.

Let me propose that we adopt the term "ontospam" for this kind of
input, in order that we can all save one anothers' time by using it
to categorize such inputs quickly and precisely. It is pretty easy to
recognize, see for example

Pat Hayes
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667    cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes


_________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Config:



_________________________________________________________________



_________________________________________________________________



_________________________________________________________________




Dennis L. Thomas 
Knowledge Foundations, Inc.
Ofc (714) 890-5984 
Cell (760) 500-9167 
------------------------------------------------
Managing the Complexity of Enterprise Knowledge





Dennis L. Thomas 
Knowledge Foundations, Inc.
Ofc (714) 890-5984 
Cell (760) 500-9167 
------------------------------------------------
Managing the Complexity of Enterprise Knowledge




_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (01)

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