Ron,
Re:
> I am not sure how a government agency can do this - an open ended
> commitment to fund every possible group that applies! (01)
I said no such thing. I said every *plausible* proposal, which means that
the proposals must be (and of course they will be) reviewed for
plausibility. (02)
If you are going to insist on making a grotesque caricature of everything
I say, it is better that we end this discussion now. (03)
Pat (04)
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc.
908-561-3416
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx (05)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ron Wheeler
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 11:59 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Web shortcomings [was Re: ANN:
> GoodRelations - The Web Ontology for E-Commerce]
>
> Patrick Cassidy wrote:
> > Ron,
> >
> > Re:
> >
> >> Why should the taxpayer back a losing group? How can the government
> >> pick
> >> a winning group at this point in such a new field?
> >>
> > Who's talking about picking a winner? This isn't a competition,
> it's
> > cooperation.
> > Look -- the initial organizing group will vote on the methods, and
> the
> > project will necessarily have a larger membership than any splinter
> group.
> > I can't figure out by what mental process you assume that the
> majority of
> > such a group must fail and that a dissident minority must
> nevertheless
> > produce something better. What are you thinking about
> >
> I am looking at the practical view that funders would take in
> evaluating
> any such proposal. How would they evaluate competing claims for
> funding?
> What is a funded group fails to achieve a satisfactory result? What if
> a
> dissident group gets support for their objections? What if a Chinese
> group gets more industry support than the American team; should the US
> government cut the funding to the US group.
> > But splinter groups aren't a problem. The magnitude of the
> > interoperability problem is so large that the government should be
> funding
> > **every** plausible project to solve it. If the organizing meeting
> uncovers
> > irreconcilable differences of approach among two or more factions,
> then the
> > best process may well be to fund all of the different approaches,
> provided
> > that each "approach" has some significant participation. (06)
> > One university
> > group depending on a graduate student to solve the problem in a year
> or two
> > is not promising. I think that a plausible attempt at developing a
> common
> > foundation ontology will have to have at least 20 geographically
> separated
> > groups participating. If multiple such project can be organized,
> they
> > should all be funded, but they should at least agree on a common
> suite of
> > test problems so that their results can be compared.
> >
> Sounds like industry associations should take the lead and if they feel
> that the payoff is too low to meet their ROI requirements, they could
> apply to the government or international bodies for assistance.
> I am not sure that a graduate student would have the industry
> experience
> to create a foundation ontology for accounting - bad choice (already
> done); for the petrochemical industry. You would be better off if a
> team of engineers from Exxon, Shell, BP, Citco, Total and
> ConocoPhillips
> got together to build it.
>
> I guess that I have more faith in "socialized medicine" than
> "socialized
> ontology".
>
> A more interesting question is "Why has industry not stepped in to
> resolve this huge problem that is costing their shareholders so much
> money?" Are we so much smarter than the managers of these companies?
> Have we failed to explain to Exxon, Shell, BP, Citco, Total and
> ConocoPhillips what the ROI is on this paltry (for them) investment?
> What is best estimate of the ROI for the petrochemical industry for a
> foundation ontology for their domain?
> Would $1,000,000 get a complete ontology for the petrochemical
> industry?
> A small fraction of what they have spent on lobbying for drilling in
> the
> US continental shelf.
>
> Ron
> > Pat
> >
> > Patrick Cassidy
> > MICRA, Inc.
> > 908-561-3416
> > cell: 908-565-4053
> > cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> >> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ron Wheeler
> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:06 PM
> >> To: [ontolog-forum]
> >> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Web shortcomings [was Re: ANN:
> >> GoodRelations - The Web Ontology for E-Commerce]
> >>
> >> Patrick Cassidy wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ron,
> >>> You are still missing the point of the foundation ontology. It
> >>>
> >> provides
> >>
> >>> the conceptual vocabulary to specify the meanings of type of things
> >>>
> >> like
> >>
> >>> geographical entities. It will not be necessary to have an
> >>>
> >> exhaustive list
> >>
> >>> of instances, only a few well-known instances of each category is
> >>>
> >> needed to
> >>
> >>> make the meaning clear.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The methodology would have to be agreed to by the design team
> >>>
> >> before the
> >>
> >>> main work starts. That should take, I estimate, a week for a
> >>>
> >> preliminary
> >>
> >>> workshop open to all participants, assuming preparatory
> discussions.
> >>> Disagreements are settled by voting. Anyone who can't agree to the
> >>>
> >> adopted
> >>
> >>> method can drop out of the project.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> And start their own project, which might be superior to the original
> >> group's proposal. Which takes us back to the current state.
> >> Why should the taxpayer back a losing group? How can the government
> >> pick
> >> a winning group at this point in such a new field?
> >>
> >>> I don't doubt that specialized ontologies can be developed by
> >>>
> >> communities
> >>
> >>> of interest as well as by individuals. But unless they are mapped
> to
> >>>
> >> a
> >>
> >>> common foundation ontology, they will not be able to interoperate
> >>>
> >> with
> >>
> >>> accuracy. Mappings that are only used for highly error-tolerant
> >>>
> >> tasks such
> >>
> >>> as search, presenting a human with a list of possibilities, will be
> >>>
> >> easier
> >>
> >>> to create but can be useful only in such limited applications. For
> >>> automated reasoning in error-intolerant applications, post-hoc
> >>>
> >> mapping to
> >>
> >>> achieve the required level of accuracy will be more costly than
> >>>
> >> building a
> >>
> >>> new ontology in the same domain. And one will still be left with
> the
> >>> n-squared complexity of creating multiple such mappings, as opposed
> >>>
> >> to order
> >>
> >>> of n for creating new interoperable ontologies by reference to a
> >>>
> >> common
> >>
> >>> foundation ontology.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Pat
> >>>
> >>> Patrick Cassidy
> >>> MICRA, Inc.
> >>> 908-561-3416
> >>> cell: 908-565-4053
> >>> cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-
> forum-
> >>>> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ron Wheeler
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 8:56 AM
> >>>> To: [ontolog-forum]
> >>>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Web shortcomings [was Re:
> ANN:
> >>>> GoodRelations - The Web Ontology for E-Commerce]
> >>>>
> >>>> You are describing an open source project where each member "who
> is
> >>>> interested" puts in his/her 2 cents and the core group decides
> what
> >>>> gets
> >>>> committed.
> >>>> This is difficult to fund with taxpayers' money since there is no
> >>>>
> >> one
> >>
> >>>> who can be held accountable and no organization who can commit to
> >>>> delivering a pre-defined deliverable.
> >>>>
> >>>> I suspect that while we wait for some rich, disinterested party to
> >>>>
> >> come
> >>
> >>>> up with $1,000 per item (number tossed about earlier) with no
> >>>>
> >> concern
> >>
> >>>> for the scope, budget, timeline, qualification of participants,
> etc.
> >>>>
> >> we
> >>
> >>>> will produce a lot of subject specific ontologies that have to be
> >>>> integrated.
> >>>>
> >>>> The GoodRelations ontology will likely be very helpful to me at
> some
> >>>> point and I am going to have to accept what compromises are part
> of
> >>>>
> >> the
> >>
> >>>> bargain just as I do when I select an open source package as the
> >>>>
> >> basis
> >>
> >>>> of an application that I am building.
> >>>>
> >>>> I know that if I pick up a "foundation ontology" that includes a
> >>>> geographical section, I am going to have to expend some effort on
> it
> >>>>
> >> if
> >>
> >>>> I want to include every town in Canada where my client has a
> store.
> >>>>
> >> If
> >>
> >>>> it was prepared by a European or Asian group, I may have more to
> do
> >>>> than
> >>>> if the project leader is from Transport Canada or CN Rail.
> >>>>
> >>>> I doubt if the GoodRelations ontology and anyone's geographical
> >>>> ontology
> >>>> is going to cause me a lot of integration problems.
> >>>>
> >>>> OTOH I have done enough with open source to understand that the
> >>>> selection of components has a direct bearing on the amount of work
> >>>>
> >> that
> >>
> >>>> you have to do and you have to do your due diligence carefully.
> >>>> We will depend on the groups preparing the ontologies to do their
> >>>>
> >> jobs
> >>
> >>>> well and to form alliances with other groups to deal with
> conflicts
> >>>>
> >> and
> >>
> >>>> boundary conditions.
> >>>> We will depend on forums like this to do the peer review and to
> >>>>
> >> provide
> >>
> >>>> references of combinations that work and ones that do not.
> >>>>
> >>>> Eventually, "ontology stacks" will arise similar to LAMP, where
> >>>>
> >> there
> >>
> >>>> is
> >>>> a general agreement that the ontologies are "compatible" to some
> >>>>
> >> well
> >>
> >>>> understood level.
> >>>>
> >>>> At least I hope that this will be true.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ron
> >>>>
> >>>> Patrick Cassidy wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Ron -
> >>>>> I thought the point was clear, but I will clarify anyway:
> >>>>> [RW} > I can see how this group would collapse into
> jurisdictional
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> disputes.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Who gets to define the medical ontology - drug companies,
> medical
> >>>>>> equipment companies, HMOs, hospitals, WHO, etc.?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Any member of the project who is interested. Membership in
> any
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> working
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> group should be fully open - no one can feel 'left out' of
> >>>>>
> >> anything.
> >>
> >>>>> You also seem to focus on a lot of specialized concepts, but
> >>>>>
> >> that
> >>
> >>>> is not
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> the purpose of developing a common foundation ontology. A
> >>>>>
> >> foundation
> >>
> >>>>> ontology will contain representations of the most basic primitive
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> concepts
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> with which all the specialized concepts can be created as
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> combinations of
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> the basic concepts. That is the path to interoperability - agree
> >>>>>
> >> on
> >>
> >>>> a basic
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> set of concepts with which you can specify all the specialized
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> concepts of
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> interest to you, and in that manner everyone can define the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> specialized
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> concepts however they consider it appropriate, using the
> primitives
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> that are
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> agreed on. By using the same set of primitives it does not
> matter
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> how much
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> people disagree on the logical representation of any specialized
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> term; it is
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> the logical representation that specifies the intended meaning,
> and
> >>>>> different representations of a specific term by different groups
> >>>>>
> >> are
> >>
> >>>> not the
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> same concept in a merged ontology of two specialized groups: they
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> will have
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> different names (different namespace prefixes for those terms)
> and
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> different
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> logical structure. The relations between the two - similarities
> >>>>>
> >> and
> >>
> >>>>> differences - will be immediately evident from a comparison of
> the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> logical
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> structures. If the logical structures are different, the terms
> >>>>>
> >> mean
> >>
> >>>>> different things. If they are intended to represent the same
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> instances,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> then the two different definitions constitute different theories
> of
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> that
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> type of entity, but this does not create a logical contradiction
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> within the
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> merged ontology, because the different theories are isolated
> within
> >>>>> different contexts in the merged ontology. The two systems can
> >>>>>
> >> still
> >>
> >>>>> communicate, but in communication the fact that they have
> different
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> theories
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> will have to be taken into account, and the differences will need
> >>>>>
> >> to
> >>
> >>>> be
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> isolated in order for comparisons to be made. If this sounds
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> complicated,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> it is only what is absolutely necessary for accurate
> communication:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> the
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> automated systems are *forced* to do what people *should* do when
> >>>>> communicating - precisely define terms and account for different
> >>>>> assumptions. It is also a mechanism for recognizing different
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> assumptions,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> and can lead to one or both disagreeing groups to change their
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> definitions.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Ontologies that are developed separately cannot be merged into
> a
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> single
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> consistent ontology without an effort comparable to the effort of
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> building a
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> new similar ontology from scratch. This is a consequence of the
> >>>>>
> >> need
> >>
> >>>> for
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> the merging agent (person or machine) to actually **understand**
> >>>>>
> >> the
> >>
> >>>>> meanings of the terms to be merged. Machines can't, so it is
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> necessarily a
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> labor-intensive task for one or more experts. From observing
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> ontology work
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> for over a dozen years, it is abundantly clear to me that waiting
> >>>>>
> >> for
> >>
> >>>> a
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> common ontology to emerge from multiple specialized ontologies is
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> hopeless
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> unless a properly funded task finds the common basic terms and
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> relates the
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> different ontologies through those terms. Funding a common
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> foundation
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> ontology is unavoidable, and the only question in my mind is how
> >>>>>
> >> many
> >>
> >>>>> trillions of dollars will be wasted before some agency finally
> >>>>>
> >> takes
> >>
> >>>> that
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> insignificant financial risk.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Pat
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Patrick Cassidy
> >>>>> MICRA, Inc.
> >>>>> 908-561-3416
> >>>>> cell: 908-565-4053
> >>>>> cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-
> >>>>>>
> >> forum-
> >>
> >>>>>> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ron Wheeler
> >>>>>> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 7:22 PM
> >>>>>> To: [ontolog-forum]
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Web shortcomings [was Re:
> >>>>>>
> >> ANN:
> >>
> >>>>>> GoodRelations - The Web Ontology for E-Commerce]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Patrick Cassidy wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> John,
> >>>>>>> Concerning your point:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The best designs are developed by small groups. After they
> have
> >>>>>>>> proved their value on at least one important application, a
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> committee
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> can evaluate them, note missing or inadequate features, and
> >>>>>>>>
> >> polish
> >>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> up
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> the details.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This may well be true of foundation ontologies, though a
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> foundation
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ontology is different enough from other artifacts to give one
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>> doubts
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> about
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> any analogies. Even if it is true, it is not inconsistent with
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> development
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> by a large group (50-100 participants), since each part of the
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> ontology
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> beyond the top level or two is likely to be the focus of a
> small
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> subgroup,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> and the group as a whole would serve the function of the
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>> "committee"
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> to be
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> sure that the work of the subgroups integrates with everything
> >>>>>>>
> >> else
> >>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> and can
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> handle the applications of interest to the whole group.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> I can see how this group would collapse into jurisdictional
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>> disputes.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Who gets to define the medical ontology - drug companies,
> medical
> >>>>>> equipment companies, HMOs, hospitals, WHO, etc.?
> >>>>>> Software engineering belongs to who?
> >>>>>> What about process control - Equipment suppliers, system
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>> integrators,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> engineers?
> >>>>>> Transportation - carriers, travel agents, shipping companies,
> >>>>>> governments?
> >>>>>> Homeland Security - can you imagine the FBI adopting an ontology
> >>>>>>
> >> set
> >>
> >>>> up
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> by Scotland Yard or the KGB or the Chinese Army let alone the
> CIA
> >>>>>>
> >> or
> >>
> >>>>>> Pentagon? If the FBI went along what would be the resistance
> from
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>> state
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> and municipal police?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> How is the funding to be divided up? So much per term and
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>> relationship
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> defined?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What about the funding agencies/companies - do they get a final
> >>>>>>
> >> say?
> >>
> >>>>>> What if the ontology does not meet their needs, will they
> continue
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>> to
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> fund it once they realize that their needs are not being met?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What are the language(computer and human) choices for expressing
> >>>>>> ontologies?
> >>>>>> Who is responsible for translation between computer languages
> and
> >>>>>> between national languages?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My ontology for process control or homeland security could (and
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>> should)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> be very different from someone else's since we will view objects
> >>>>>>
> >> and
> >>
> >>>>>> relationships differently and will need different results.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think that ontologies will be developed as small packages and
> >>>>>> application designers will have pick the namespaces that they
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>> require
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> for their needs.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sometimes this will result in new merged ontologies being
> >>>>>>
> >> published.
> >>
> >>>>>> Some ontologies will be abandoned as better ones appear.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The focus should be on identifying ontologies as they emerge,
> >>>>>> commenting
> >>>>>> on them and providing peer review to improve quality.
> >>>>>> The development of tools to support this process and the use of
> >>>>>>
> >> the
> >>
> >>>>>> ontologies as they arise is a much better place for funding to
> be
> >>>>>> focused.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ron
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Pat
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Patrick Cassidy
> >>>>>>> MICRA, Inc.
> >>>>>>> 908-561-3416
> >>>>>>> cell: 908-565-4053
> >>>>>>> cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>> forum-
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
> >>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 2:20 AM
> >>>>>>>> To: [ontolog-forum]
> >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Web shortcomings [was
> Re:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>> ANN:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> GoodRelations - The Web Ontology for E-Commerce]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ron,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Just a comment about standards:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> > My understanding is that most of the "best" standards have
> >>>>>>>>
> >> come
> >>
> >>>>>>>> > about through a consensus between the major commercial
> >>>>>>>>
> >> players
> >>
> >>>>>>>> > with the active (frequently funded) participation of the
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>> academic
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> > community.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The important caveat is that committees are terrible at
> design,
> >>>>>>>> but they're very good at evaluation. There are many proverbs
> >>>>>>>>
> >> and
> >>
> >>>>>>>> anecdotes about that point:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - Too many cooks spoil the broth.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - A camel is a horse designed by committee. (This is a slur
> >>>>>>>>
> >> on
> >>
> >>>>>>>> camels, which are very well designed for their
> environment.)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - Fred Brooks' _Mythical Man Month_, in which he observes
> that
> >>>>>>>> OS/360 would have been far better designed by a group of
> >>>>>>>> about a dozen designers instead of 150.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The best designs are developed by small groups. After they
> have
> >>>>>>>> proved their value on at least one important application, a
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> committee
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> can evaluate them, note missing or inadequate features, and
> >>>>>>>>
> >> polish
> >>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> up
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> the details.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A prime example is FORTRAN, which was designed by a group of
> >>>>>>>> "academics"
> >>>>>>>> who happened to be employed by IBM (at a time when IBM had a
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> sufficient
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> monopoly to throw money at researchers who weren't making a
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> measurable
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> contribution to the bottom line).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> There were a few programming languages implemented before
> >>>>>>>>
> >> FORTRAN,
> >>
> >>>>>>>> but they were all very inefficient (at a time when computers
> >>>>>>>>
> >> were
> >>
> >>>>>>>> a few thousand times slower than today's cell phones). The
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>> FORTRAN
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> group (of about half a dozen people led by John Backus) set
> out
> >>>>>>>>
> >> to
> >>
> >>>>>>>> design a language and compiler that would produce code that
> was
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> close
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> to the efficiency of code produced by a decent assembly-
> language
> >>>>>>>> programmer. And they succeeded.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> After a couple of iterations by IBM, FORTRAN IV became a very
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>> good,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> very usable, and very efficient language for numeric
> >>>>>>>>
> >> computation.
> >>
> >>>>>>>> The ANSI and later ISO standards bodies took over. Over fifty
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>> years
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> later, they are still producing new revisions that preserve
> much
> >>>>>>>> of the original core language. Today, FORTRAN is still the
> most
> >>>>>>>> efficient and most widely used language for high-speed numeric
> >>>>>>>> computation.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> For some related thoughts, see the "Law of Standards," which I
> >>>>>>>> formulated in 1991:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> http://www.jfsowa.com/computer/standard.htm
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And by the way, the original WWW was designed by a small
> group,
> >>>>>>>> but the Semantic Web was designed by a very large committee.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> John Sowa
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >>
> >>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> _________________________________________________________________
> >>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> _________________________________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> _________________________________________________________________
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> _________________________________________________________________
> >>>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> _________________________________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|