[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] semantics of the mKR language

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 22:36:55 +0100
Message-id: <c09b00eb0904011436l650f9610hb8056c97280d7fc6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Chris and Peter

I do not read the same as you do Azamat's post on this occasion

 pointless spats are unnecessary, however on this list, open critique that often ends up in offensive spats
is commonplance, and not even remotely moderated (even when they become direct, deliberate, vile  and unmotivated personal attacks)

I can understand that paying lip service to those who hold the strings of the EU funding
purse, (to which many on this list are trying to get to), can pay off, that could explain the sudden urge for  moderation interventions

 I hope that nobody  is trying to diminish the credibility of scientists and researchers,  many of whom are
friends and colleagues, even when we think their work is not useful to us

What seems to me  is at the heart of this discussion, or where inevitable it seem to point to
 is that much  of  funded projects and research on semantic web (neon happens to be one of them, nothing personal) have been developed  with great expenditure of public funding,  without enough benefits,

There is agreement that OWL standard, for example, which is far from being a practically useful and has a lot of limitations, but a lot of public money is being funnelled into projects that revolve around OWL,

How can the research community justify such poor planning  other than by hiding from public discussions?

So we have millions, billions, being spent developing soemthing that is of limited usage.

that's what I think is causing frustration, and perhaps results in what may sound offensive especially to those who may have a chip on the shoulder

I am personally try to make the most of what is around, and learn as much as I can, but the weaknesses of these technologies and the waste of resources, such as tons of duplicate tools around which overlap in functionality, and neither of them makes it any easier for us to actually geetting down to make the semantic web vision closer for us

why is that?

i would say its because too many people who have made decisions so far are rather touchy about this, and refuse to take responsibility, and try to get more money out of the system

That is not say that I understand the alternatives any better, but thats another post


On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Christopher Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 1, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Azamat wrote:
> John wrote"
> AA> Mao said: "Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools
>>> of thought contend is the policy for promoting progress in the arts
>>> and the sciences ...".
>> That's a good slogan. But there's a big difference between
>> actionsand slogans. Remember that about 40 years ago, Mao let loose
>> theRed Guards, who tried to destroy the "flowers" (books, art
>> work,and scholars) of several millennia of Chinese arts and sciences.
> That's right, John.
> For the sake of historical truth, Mao is still numbered among the
> most important figures of the modern world history.

Likewise Hitler and Stalin.  What's your point?

> As for RHM, he has an honest open mind with sincere intentions to
> move things. Nowadays, it is not easy to find somebody seeking not
> monetary profit but just the pride of accomplishment.

If what you mean by "monetary profit" is simply steady funding, then
of course it is not easy.  We are doing research that we are
passionate about and without some source of funding to pay the bills
it is not possible.  Do you think there is something wrong with this,
or are the only "true researchers" in your mind either poverty-
stricken, independently wealthy, or doing their research on the side?

However, unless I'm reading you wrong, your implication here seems to
be that, for the vast majority of ontology researchers, their research
is a mere means to a financial end.  Strong stuff!  If that is the
claim, I doubt you have a shred of evidence for it.

> His generall terminology is not a big problem, when giving a proper
> interpretation.

And the problem of giving a semantic interpretation to his work is
exactly what several of us were encouraging him to address.

> Also, his research is not any load to the public, unlike those
> eating the public funds without knowing what they are to deliver.
> Here is a 'rationale' i met on the research page of one such project
> costing Euro 14 m:
> "Most of the existing practices for the development of ontologies
> focus on a single ontology, on a global consistency of such an
> ontology, and, in principle, on a linear development. This is very
> restrictive -- it is as if we all communicated in a single language
> and completely disregarded our cultural or historical specifics.
> Single ontology means single viewpoint on the problems, situations
> and solutions. If in our everyday life we use many different
> viewpoints, why can't designers of semantic applications and
> engineers developing knowledge models do the same? In NeOn, we see
> several dimensions, in which the existing single-ontology style of
> work needs to be enriched."
> Which objective the whole project is aimed for: arguing for the
> single ontology or agaist it? That's a real puzzle, not Chinese
> puzzle.

The puzzle is why you don't grasp the fact that the writer is
obviously arguing against the idea of a single ontology.

> I wish to be mistaken, but it sounds as the folks don't know that
> they don't know what they are talking about and doing. I am afraid
> that many of these people are among (ontology) reviewers, passing
> judgments on other projects. That's a real harm.

Another real harm is to slander a legitimate research project (about
which you apparently know very little) in a public forum with a single
piece of cherry-picked "evidence" to "demonstrate" your thesis.  That
is a tactic for rightwing talk radio, not a research forum.  The
project in question, NeOn, is a large one involving dozens of people,
many of them fine researchers.  If you want a truly fair and balanced
account, read the annual reports and the publications the project has
made available.

Chris Menzel

Paola Di Maio,
IEEE/DEST 09 Collective Intelligence Track (deadline extended)

i-Semantics 2009, 2 - 4 September 2009, Graz, Austria. www.i-semantics.tugraz.at

SEMAPRO 2009, Malta
Mae Fah Luang Child Protection Project, Chiang Rai Thailand

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    (01)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>