[pc] > > Cost of lack of semantic interoperability: assume 100 billion per
> > year (0.7% of GDP)
[PH] > Just in passing, where do you get that figure from?
(1) Jan Walker, Eric Pan, Douglas Johnston, Julia Adler-Milstein, David W.
Bates and Blackford Middleton, The Value of Healthcare Information Exchange
and Interoperability Health Affairs, 19 January 2005:
(3) http://www.nist.gov/director/prog-ofc/report99-1.pdf (02)
Final figure conservatively extrapolated from these studies. (03)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pat Hayes
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 2:59 AM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology
> On Feb 10, 2009, at 10:43 PM, Patrick Cassidy wrote:
> > My difficulty with just waiting until some "large and economically
> > important
> > community of practice" evolves is, that on the basis of the
> > experience of
> > the past fifteen years, this process could take several decades, or
> > longer.
> > If here is any truth to the estimate that lack of semantic
> > interoperability
> > costs the country $100 billion per year in lost productivity, then it
> > appears to me to be foolishness to let a few trillion dollars of
> > losses
> > accumulate rather than to attack the problem directly by creating
> > "community of practice" by funding its creation. That is the
> > essence of the
> > proposal that we fund a consortium of 100 or so participants who will
> > develop, and then test in their own applications, some foundation
> > ontology
> > suitable to all of them. The sooner such a community does develop,
> > the
> > sooner the benefits of a common ontology can begin to be felt.
> > One might argue with the estimate of losses due to semantic
> > interoperability
> > - fine, let us try to arrive at an estimate we can believe in. One
> > can also
> > argue about the likelihood of any given proposal of solving the
> > problem.
> > Fine with that too. But since the costs are economical, a rational
> > discussion should include a cost-benefit analysis. Here's one try:
> > Cost of lack of semantic interoperability: assume 100 billion per
> > year
> > (0.7% of GDP)
> Just in passing, where do you get that figure from?
> > Portion of that cost that could be reduced by a common foundation
> > ontology: 1/5 (20 billion per year)
> Here's where we disagree. I suggest that the correct proportion here
> would be more like 0.01 percent. Not because it wouldn't work if
> people would all use it, but because people will not in fact use it.
> Pat H.
> 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/
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)