I think that there might be justification for certain industry groups to
get together to produce their own "standard" ontologies.
The 100 guys in a room model will work if each guy shows up with his
organization's $100,000.
Then you know that there is a problem to be solved and a commitment to
at least consider using the results. (01)
Without that, I am afraid that the output will be another unused system. (02)
Ron (03)
Rich Cooper wrote:
> Patrick Cassidy wrote:
> ======================= ====================== ===============
> ... A full language, including
> the basic vocabulary , is useful mostly for communication among agents. To
> be useful there need to be multiple agents that communicate using the
> language.
> ======================= ====================== ===============
>
> In nearly every database product, there is room for multiple agents,
> typically at least one on every desktop connected to the database server.
> However, that is within the walls of an individual developer (or business,
> or software product vendor). The vocabulary for that implementation type is
> based on the relations, views, columns and domains of the application. All
> modern DBMSs support multiple concurrent users which speak that vocabulary.
>
>
> But getting multiple organizations to use the SAME vocabulary in their
> agents is the issue we're discussing. So I'm guessing, in the above, that
> you mean multiple agents from different organizations, preferably those
> without political cross relationships. I don't see that happening in the
> current circumstances. It simply isn't a practical, cost effective approach
> for the organizations.
>
> Patrick Cassidy Again:
> ======================= ====================== ===============
> But adopting a language by a natural process of accumulation of
> users (from the first two) can be a very long process - it probably took
> thousands of years for human languages to evolve their current ability to
> describe the world.
> ======================= ====================== ===============
>
> Human language appears to have been extremely geographically local. Only
> tribes of people in contact with other tribes near them had a chance to
> develop and practice common vocabularies. As the size of tribes grew into
> large volumes of people, many (not just one) common vocabularies began to
> emerge. I expect the same general description to be true of ontologies when
> they begin to be generally fruitful. At this time in 2009, only small
> groups use the same ontology. Unlike natural languages, it isn't necessary,
> or even useful to have your competitors use the same vocabulary. The best
> way to change that situation is to find a very large customer with deep
> pockets who will demand that all business partners use the same ontology.
>
> Computer science standards have emerged when there are competitors, and one
> customer is large, and economically equipped to demand consistent interfaces
> from all partners. Wal-Mart, for example, requires that their suppliers
> interface electronically and keep the shelf inventories stocked through
> automated timely shipments. If you want to sell through Wal-Mart, this is
> the only way you can do it. But Wal-Mart is only one organization.
>
> Wal-Mart doesn't care about the ontology of the products. It doesn't
> distinguish between baseballs and cantaloupes, televisions and chewing gums.
> Only an inventory part number designates one product from another. What
> would Wal-Mart gain by having more ontological insight into its products,
> stores, employees and so on?
>
>
>
> Patrick Cassidy Again:
> ======================= ====================== ===============
> We can do it a lot faster if we kick-start the user community by having a
> large group of developers and users agree on the basic vocabulary. It can
> evolve from that point, but to evolve, anything has to first survive.
> Having a starting community of over a hundred users gives the standard a
> chance to survive and show its capabilities.
> ======================= ====================== ===============
>
> User communities generally don't like being kick-started. What's in it for
> them? Ontologists believe that ontologies are important, but users believe
> that their organization's mission is important. According to the theory of
> constraints, organizations only focus well on one constraint at a time. So
> why would any user community refocus a major investment into ontologies?
>
> I don't see it happening now. The real question is what situation is needed
> to make an ontology-based product highly valuable to ONE ORGANIZTION? That
> might be a likely way in which standard ontologies can become widely used.
> That organization also has to have money, and a mission that is consistent
> with ontological representation. Other than organizations with critical
> functions inside the US government, I don't see any organization that can
> fill that role. What is the gain they obtain through use of ontologies?
>
> -Rich
>
> rich AT englishlogickernel DOT COM
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (05)
|