Dear Rich, (01)
> So far, the only value we have agreed on is that databases could be
> integrated if we only had ontologies. Someone tossed a 100B dollar
> cost
> estimate into the porridge a few days ago. 100B is not very large, as
> congressional budgets go. But I'm skeptical whether the value of such
> a
> project is anywhere near 100B. In fact, I am not aware of any
> databases
> that could be integrated to yield a 1B result at this time. (02)
[MW] There is already even an ISO standard aimed at this application: ISO
15926. And there have been significant benefits from its use in the Oil and
Gas industry. I would say at least tens of millions of dollars, and possibly
more - I'm not aware of all the uses. So the $100b benefit for US industry
sounds quite reasonable. (03)
[MW] A more interesting question is: if this is already available, why do
more people not want to use it? (04)
[MW] One reason is that to use an ontology for integration, you need to
understand that ontology. This is a significant barrier to entry for any
ontology. Ontologies have a habit of being obvious to their creators, but
opaque to others. (05)
[MW] Another reason is simply "Not invented here". (06)
[MW] Finally, most people are too busy dealing with the symptoms you get
from having information that is not integrated, to look at actually
addressing the underlying problem. (07)
Regards (08)
Matthew West
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (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)
|