OTOH, A US law that says that
- banks and publicly traded companies can not offer or purchase a new
financial product that is not described in terms of the US Treasury's
ontology for Financial Instruments
- each transaction must be properly recorded with the government using
the same ontology and
- each institution must report daily, its position in each instrument,
will go a long way to getting the financial sector to adopt ontology. (01)
To encourage accuracy, the law should also insist that the ontological
description of the instrument takes precedence over written natural
language contracts. (02)
This would have saved $700 billion in year (2008) and may be required,
ultimately, to restore trust between financial institutions. (03)
Right now, no one knows what anyone owns or owes and they have no way to
evaluate what each contract, that their friend holds, means in terms of
the friend's financial position.
The financial instruments are too numerous and too complex to evaluate.
There needs to be a way to evaluate the thousands or even millions of
contracts and financial instruments in real time to decide if your
prospective partner institution is credit worthy or one step away from
insolvency. (04)
There is a real problem. Can the collective intelligence here, figure
out a solution?
It will probably take 18 months to get such a law written (another $500
billion will be spent propping up the banks and providing direct relief
for small banks, businesses and individuals once the lawmakers figure
out that no amount of cash is going to tell one large institution that
it is OK to trade with another large one), so there is time to get a
basic ontology started if the government decides to go this route. (05)
Ron (06)
Patrick Cassidy wrote:
> Don,
> I agree that initial adoption outside of the user community created by
> funding the initial project is likely to be slow, until some publicly
> testable interesting applications are developed. My best guess is that some
> degree of language understanding will the first application to pique
> interest. When it becomes clear that ontologies are useful locally, and
> even more useful to enable semantic interoperability, I would expect an
> accelerating pace of adoption, helped by utilities, books on the topic,
> university IT departments starting to teach the technique, etc.
>
> I don't know how long all this will take, but I do feel confident that by
> not directly creating an FO with a wide user community, the achievement of
> semantic interoperability will be a lot slower.
>
> 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 Conklin, Don
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 3:07 PM
>> To: [ontolog-forum]
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology
>>
>> Commercial organizations do not typically look much beyond the next
>> fiscal quarter. The FO would have to offer immediate financial benefit
>> to gain funding support. Aside from the various objections to the FO,
>> even if one were to appear, its adoption would proceed at a glacial
>> pace. This is because the legions of ontology developers don't yet
>> exist
>> to apply the technology to the domains the corporations work in
>> (biomedical and certain government orgs excepted). Also, the supporting
>> applications and products are not known or trusted by the commercial
>> world. (Let's not quibble about some vendors that claim semantic
>> capabilities.) No one, especially corporations, are eager to step away
>> from millions already invested in COTS solutions that work today. The
>> large figures of savings quoted in earlier emails boil down to much
>> smaller figures for individual companies. Show my company how the FO
>> will save them millions in the next two-three quarters without adverse
>> impact and they might express interest.
>>
>> Don Conklin
>> Lockheed Martin, ISGS-Defense
>> Virginia Beach, VA
>> 1+757-675-5947
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Patrick
>> Cassidy
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 2:12 PM
>> To: edbark@xxxxxxxx; '[ontolog-forum] '
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology
>>
>>
>>> Patrick Cassidy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> What do you think that people *would* use that would provide them
>>>>
>>> accurate
>>>
>>>> semantic interoperability?
>>>>
>>> The ontology they developed.
>>>
>>> -Ed
>>>
>>> --
>>> Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
>>>
>> [[PC]] If that is the case, then you are asserting that the only people
>> who
>> would use a FO for interoperability are those who participate in its
>> development. I agree that that is what is true **at the present time**,
>> and
>> that is the reason that a user community can only be developed quickly
>> by
>> funding it. Over time, after publicly available applications
>> demonstrate
>> its utility, I would then expect it to attract users who did not
>> participate
>> in its development.
>>
>> Without funding an FO community, I expect we will get a widely used FO
>> eventually, but only after having wasted many billions in efficiency
>> loss,
>> and spent even more than 30M trying less functional alternatives.
>>
>> Pat
>>
>>
>> Patrick Cassidy
>> MICRA, Inc.
>> 908-561-3416
>> cell: 908-565-4053
>> cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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)
|