I do not object to government participation as long as there are 99
other organizations with $100,000 worth of skin in the project. (01)
It seems that there are large sectors (more that 10% of the whole value)
in the economy such as Defense, Health or Transportation that could find
$10,000,000 to save $10,000,000,0000 if it really is a viable idea.
The idea that that the whole project is worth $100,000,000,000 if every
company and government agency uses it and if worth $0 if one refuses is
a bit hard to grasp. There has to be a lower threshold for the ROI to
kick in. (02)
Perhaps the upgrade of the Health Care IT infrastructure will include a
foundation ontology to support medical records
that will form the base of the new "standard". (03)
Is there a "killer application" in Health Care that would save billions?
Lord knows there is enough money and waste in that sector to justify
$10,0000,000 to save even a small percentage of the overall spending.
If 50 states and 20 HMOs and 20 large hospitals and 10 insurance
companies bring $100,000 each, you have a viable project and a user base
that can drive the standard. I would not mind if the federal government
helped each public organization to come up with their share but I would
like to see some skin on the line from each of the organizations that
supposedly will reap the benefits. (04)
If there is no application of ontology to Health Care information
collection, sharing and evaluation with a decent ROI, we probably should
just shut down this forum and find something more productive to do with
our time. (05)
Ron (06)
Patrick Cassidy wrote:
> Ron:
>
>>>> The 100 guys in a room model will work if each guy shows up with his
>>>>
>> organization's $100,000.
>>
> I think it will also work if they each get Uncle Sam's 100,000, with the
> condition that they do something with the resulting ontology and report
> their results and any perceived problems. That is what I mean by
> "kick-starting" a user community. The use of the ontology in some
> application (broadly construed as any program that will test the ontology
> beyond the simple data in -data out function of a database) probably needs
> to be a precondition of funding, but there may be other actions that will
> help evolve a user community, such as developing some helpful utility to
> make use easier. Such issues can be discussed and agreed on before the
> project starts by those who want to participate. Non-funded participants
> should also be welcome.
> The result has to be public domain, no one should have to pay anything
> for access to the common ontology. Proprietary extensions can be developed
> by anyone and sold, but can't be part of the common language, maintained by
> an executive committee after the initial phase.
>
> 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, January 06, 2009 7:11 PM
>> To: [ontolog-forum]
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fw: Next steps in using ontologies as
>> standards
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Without that, I am afraid that the output will be another unused system.
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|