ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] ISO merged ontology effort "MCO"

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 08:23:18 -0700
Message-id: <af8f58ac0904100823x605e4fc7t37549165a5ab91c4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 1:20 AM, Gian Piero Zarri <zarri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> ... wasting the money of the European taxpayers
> in launching questionable 14.7 million Euro projects
> like NeON - see Azemat's remarks few days ago. ...
>
> You should, may be, buy my book...    (01)

[ppy]  Gian and Azamat, please refer to my post at:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2009-04/msg00013.html    (02)

As I wrote Azamat privately before,
//
I don't play politics ... in fact I deplore that and people who do.
.
As far as my role at ONTOLOG is concerned, I would only ask: "is this
move advancing or retarding our mission?" ... and I am calling a stop
so that we don't throw the long and hard work by so many people in the
community (building out this community environment and a really
respectable body of knowledge) down the drain, because certain
individual(s) had a bad day.
//    (03)

I think we all lose, if we start playing politics!    (04)

Again Azamat, please do not mistake the [ontolog-forum] for the
IEEE-SUO list. Ontolog is not a research institution. This is not a
standards development organization. All we are  supposed to be, is a
good conversation (at the "watercooler" or the "tavern at the end of
the working day").  And if that spins off to research projects,
development projects, standards working groups, by individual members
who, through this community, discover who has the knowledge, the skill
sets and the right chemistry that they can team up with to do some
productive work, that would be great!    (05)

Uninvoked accusations bordering on being libellous to specific
individuals or organizations, don't count as good conversations (at
least not here.) I am sure there are proper channels and venue for you
to voice your concerns. But, sorry, [ontolog-forum] is the wrong
place.    (06)

Again, I cordially request that you take this conversation elsewhere.    (07)

Thanks in advance.  =ppy
--    (08)


On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Azamat <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> There is a good saying in Russia: the holy place is never empty. Since this
> respected Forum is unable to come to some joint decision on the "holy issue"
> of ontology standards, somebody else had to appear.
>
> So there surfaced up some astute individuals, the esteemed [Barry Smith
> (US), Pat Hayes (US)] with their less known companions [Werner Ceusters
> (US), Frank Farance (US), Nicola Guarino (Italy)] to fill the holy place
> with their secret stuff. Barring SUMO, I've never heard of any convener of
> any systematic upper ontology, if only papers and articles. The ontologies
> proposed are of restricted importance, and hardly will make any useful
> standards, see the synopsis on STANDARD ONTOLOGY: the Standard Model of
> Reality, Representation and Reasoning,
>
> What is to be done. By the next month the working draft of the MCO must be
> prepared. The sponsors could be asked to make the wide public known about
> the results; at least to find out the meanings of "Standardized concept
> systems", "Merged Core Ontology."
>
> By 2009-06, upon studying the draft to send the Forumís regrets or better
> replacement to the SC32/WG2  as a recommended standards project. That's it.
>
> Some general reflections.  There are said many degrees of intelligence. But
> there are two broad types of intelligence: shrewdness, practical hardheaded
> intelligence, and intellectual brightness, high smartness. Astute folks are
> good in business dealings, intellectuals in big science, in searching truths
> about the world. Presently, the science is increasingly converting into a
> unique business activity, huge profits, zero risk, no any investments. More
> and more public funds go there, which you don't need to hardly earn. All
> what you need is to be sharp as a businessman, like the people from
> Ontoprise, selling their old software products to the EU several times as
> NeOn project, ONTORULE project; find yourself how else.
>
> To head-off such bad squandering, i suggest for the politicians to accept a
> special Act on Research Fraud (going as an article in the contracts signed
> with the government):
>
> [in case of false promises and fictitious delivery to consider large fines,
> the amount spent plus banking interests plus moral damages to the
> public]. Then, I believe, the quality of research projects will go high
> while the wild commercialization of science and intellectual minds might be
> stopped.
>
> Azamat Abdoullaev
>    (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)

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