Sean,
It's hard for me to imagine why a *basic* data model (5000-1000 elements)
would cost that much. Do you have any references that describe the history
of the project, how it was constructed, and with a cost tag on each phase?
I have a feeling that a lot more than just construction of the basic model
is included in that number. Cyc has about 600 person-years, which should
not be over $60 million, and a lot of that was specialized, well outside the
boundaries of the foundation ontology.
The five million dollar cost is the cost of demonstrating agreement (not
necessarily universal) on the most basic 2000 elements, which would
demonstrate the feasibility and utility of extending the ontology to a full
foundation ontology, and providing the proposal how to proceed. To include
several demonstration applications and a usable natural-language interface
(converting definitions in a controlled vocabulary to the logical form, and
finding the nearest existing element(s) to the proposed new element, I am
estimating at another 10 to 20 million. (01)
A great deal depends on how one plans to proceed. After 13 years of
discussion about "upper ontologies" and large already-existing inventories
of logically-defined basic concepts from the current most well-known ones, I
think we can devise a process that is a lot more efficient than starting
from scratch. (02)
Pat (03)
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc.
908-561-3416
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx (04)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sean Barker
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 2:14 PM
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [ontolog-forum] Fw: Semantic Web shortcomings [wasRe: ANN:
> GoodRelations - The Web Ontology for E-Commerce]
>
>
>
> Pat,
> The investment to date in the STEP data model has been estimated
> at over $500,000,000, and that is limited to the fairly narrow field of
> Europe/US Defence/Aerospace/Automotive product data. $5,000,000 for a
> foundation ontology sounds like a gross underestimate.
>
>
> Sean Barker
> Bristol
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Patrick
> Cassidy
> Sent: 18 August 2008 15:54
> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Web shortcomings [wasRe: ANN:
> GoodRelations - The Web Ontology for E-Commerce]
>
>
> *** WARNING ***
>
> This mail has originated outside your organization, either from an
> external partner or the Global Internet.
> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>
> All those points about how traditional standards are developed are
> valid, but a foundation ontology for semantic interoperability is not
> like a traditional standard. It's orders of magnitude more complex.
> There are already several possible starting points - Cyc is the most
> highly developed, but has been badly hindered by its commercial origin
> and continuing lack of full openness in development. The fact that
> nothing has gained traction in over ten years should be an indicator
> that a new initiative is needed. To me the obvious thing to try is to
> get together a large group of ontology developers and users and find a
> common *basis* (the foundation ontology) for creating logical
> representations of the meanings in all of the concepts that that group
> is interested in. Such a project would cost over 5 million dollars,
> and
> such a project has never been funded - even though the benefits of
> success would dwarf the cost of development. When that tactic has
> been
> tried and fails to get a large and growing user community, then and
> only
> then would I look for alternative methods that would be invariably more
> costly, slower and less likely to achieve the optimal solution.
> Whatever is developed by the starting project can evolve and adapt just
> as well - probably better, having been carefully thought out at the
> basic level - as anything mashed together by a less organized project.
> Acceptance in the commercial field would follow after non-commercial
> development and applications have shown its usefulness. Possibly the
> closest analogy would be the Linux operating system, where the core was
> developed by one person and is maintained by a tightly organized group.
> But even Linux is simpler than a foundation ontology.
> One consideration that seems to be ignored by those who are waiting
> for some standard to evolve from an unorganized collaborative process
> is
> that there is a very large cost in lost opportunity for every day the
> adoption of the standard is delayed. The cost of just the lack of
> interoperability of relational databases in the US has been estimated
> at
> over 100 billion dollars per year. The current lost opportunity cost
> for one hour would pay for a project to try to reach such an agreement.
> The benefits are so enormous that I think that *every* plausible tactic
> to achieve agreement on a foundation ontology should be funded. This
> notion doesn't seem to have been accepted yet by any funding agency.
> Waiting for something to somehow appear by a process that has never
> produced any comparably complex artifact is not in my estimation a
> cost-effective tactic.
>
> Pat
>
> Patrick Cassidy
> MICRA, Inc.
> 908-561-3416
> cell: 908-565-4053
> cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|