Ron,
Some responses interleaved below: (01)
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc.
908-561-3416
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx (02)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ron Wheeler
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 7:57 AM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fw: Next steps in using ontologies as
> standards
>
> I do not object to government participation as long as there are 99
> other organizations with $100,000 worth of skin in the project.
> (03)
[[PC]] that would be ideal, but hell might freeze over before that could be
organized. There is no need to waste all that time just to satisfy some
concern that the project **might** not succeed. (04)
> 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.
>
[[PC]] I'm sure there are subsets of users for which an FO would be
cost-effective, but it seems to be even harder to convince managers with a
narrower mandate to take a long-range view and build basic information
infrastructure rather than cobble together something they are familiar with
(e.g. a data warehouse) that does the job locally. (05)
> 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".
>
> 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.
>
[[PC]] Again, that would be ideal - but why do you want to punish the whole
country because some poorly informed managers are not willing to risk money
on a project with which they have no familiarity? I expect it will be
easier to get a serious study of the problem at the national level, but that
is politics, not science. (06)
It seems as though you are saying that you can't decide for yourself on the
merits of the proposal, and will wait until a whole lot of other people with
money to commit decide that it is worthwhile, before you are convinced. IN
my estimate, this is precisely the attitude that has delayed collaborative
work on a foundation ontology, which might have been built effectively, and
evolved into a very powerful system, if it had been funded back in 1994 when
it was first proposed (in a different form). I have heard the same lament
from others, who complain that managers are incapable of evaluating
technical proposals and do nothing about technical projects until dozens of
people come at them insistently requesting the same thing, at which point
they conclude that there must be something to it. As we have seen from the
recent debacle in the financial system, waiting until a problem is obvious
to the most casual observer can be extremely expensive. I think we already
have enough knowledge of the issue to risk what is an extremely modest
amount of research funding on a technology of potentially very great
utility.
If there are technical issues that give one pause, we can discuss that,
but I would rather not adopt a political approach of seeking consensus - not
because it is inherently problematic, but because in some cases (such as the
present) the time required to use that approach allows great and unnecessary
losses to accumulate while managers are being educated. (07)
> 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.
>
[[PC]] I am sure there is. But *proving* it requires that it be built and
tried in that application. (08)
> Ron
>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|