Dear Ron, (01)
>
> 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. (02)
[MW] This is pretty much what has happened with both the STEP (ISO 10303)
family of standards, and the ISO 15926 family.
>
> Without that, I am afraid that the output will be another unused
> system. (03)
[MW] Both get significant use within their communities, and have more
than paid their way. (04)
Regards (05)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 560 302 3685
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (06)
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (07)
>
> Ron
>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|