Rich,
Numbered responses to a few points:
(1) > 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 (01)
> effective approach for the organizations.
>
The agents can be within an organization or among different organizations.
Inside an organization it is a lot easier to standardize on semantics,
especially for small domains. The big challenge is among multiple
organizations. (02)
. . . but:
> [RC] I don't see that happening in the current circumstances. (03)
So, you think that the notion of multiple agents accessing services on the
"semantic web" is so hopelessly far in the future that it is not worthwhile
trying to find a way to make it work right now? (04)
(2) > [RC] 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.
A common language is useful for those people who want to communicate.
Those who don't want the world to know what they are saying do not influence
development of the language. Of course, it will be used by those who find
it useful - the others are irrelevant. (05)
(3) > [RC] > Computer science standards have emerged when there are
competitors, and
> one customer is large, and economically equipped to demand consistent
> interfaces from all partners. (06)
That is just one possible path to emergence of a common ontology, and
hardly the only path. But (a) it hasn't happened yet for a foundation
ontology; (b) it may take a *very* long time to emerge that way; (c) we can
accelerate the process dramatically by finding a common ontology that is
technically satisfactory to a large community; and (d) every year of delay
causes large economic losses due to inefficiency in integrating currently
implemented databases - losses well in excess of the cost of making a
serious effort to get a common foundation ontology. Local solutions do not
address the global problem, and could be created easier if there were a
general ontology known to be suitable for many different applications. (07)
(4) [RC] > User communities generally don't like being kick-started.
This may be a valid observation about *some* user communities you are
familiar with, but I have participated in enough discussions of this topic
with enough people to know that, **if funding were available to support
their participation** a majority of those who have an interest in semantic
interoperability would in fact participate in such a project. One driving
factor is that, **if enough funding were available to create a significant
probability of success** few of those who have been concerned about the
semantic interoperability problem would want to be left out of having any
influence in the creation of the standard. Most of us think we have
something to contribute to such a standard, but can only work on it if the
funding we get for other activities that take up significant time is
replaced by finding for such a common project. We know from the SUMO effort
that few people have enough spare time to put in the hours it takes to
master the complexities of a proposed foundation ontology, and suggest
logically consistent additions. Getting enough funding is the key. If we
create a standard by a process that hasn't been used before, it should come
as no surprise that you haven't noticed such a process before. Your
argument seems to be "X hasn't been done by process P therefore X cannot be
done by process P". What I know is that there are a lot of people willing
to participate in such a project, **if it is properly funded**. That
doesn't guarantee success, but it does provide a plausible path in the
absence of any credible alternative that can occur within our lifetimes. (08)
Pat (09)
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc.
908-561-3416
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx (010)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 5:03 PM
> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fw: Next steps in using ontologies as
> standards
>
> 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
> (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (012)
|