Conklin, Don wrote:
> I'll start from the end of your last post. There is little point in
>repeatedly referring to lost productivity on a grand scale when there is no
>one concerned about it who has the resources to address it. The closest match
>would require a call to 202-456-1414, ask for Obama. Good luck with that.
> My experiences with DOD affirm your comment in that they want an order of
>magnitude advance from semantic technologies. But the hard truth is that the
>more tightly a domain is focused, the more a relational DB solution will
>equal, or better a semantic solution. At much less cost and difficulty.
> The DOD entities I've dealt with typically seek to integrate some number of
>relational DB's, sometimes with unstructured data. But within a fairly tight
>domain (yes, there is a range to the domain focus).
> Interoperability, while given much lip service, lags the commercial world.
>The DOD XML Registry was going to be the solution...still waiting on that one.
>By the way, where is the ontology repository and how capable is it?
> Fielding large scale, operational semantic systems is not yet feasible
>because the supporting infrastructure is not in place. For example, look in
>the Sunday paper job ads for oracle DB administrators. Then look for
> Unfortunately, as it takes money to make money, success breeds success.
>Fielded semantic systems that work will garner more funds for the application
>of those technologies.
> It would be great if the federal government CIO announced a major drive to
>develop and field semantic technologies. I'm not holding my breath and he is a
>lot more worried about the next windows virus that decimates federal PC's.
> It will take a near gorilla campaign of small successful semantic projects
>time to prove themselves while the supporting infrastructure matures.
> The same way that Apple makes sound loops available in garage bands for
>neophytes to compose into music may be a model for non-ontologists to grab
>pertinent ontologies to compose into domain ontologies. Then there will be a
>customer pull for the techologies often discussed here.
That is what I hoped that the wiki would do but it seems that most of
the vocal people here are more interested in angel choreography than
actually advancing the use of ontology.
Some lurkers are actually quietly going about making things happen or at
least that is what I get from the occasional post. (01)
This was a hellofa long email to type on a blackberry. Good thing my
flight was delayed.
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 (03)