I am having trouble understanding what you mean by (01)
"Uninvoked accusations bordering on being libellous to specific
individuals or organizations, don't count as good conversations" (02)
If you think that someone said something libellous, you should at least
quote the statement in question. (03)
The suggestion that a project is a "waste of taxpayers money" is not
libellous. If it were, democratic politics as we know it in the western
world would come to an end.
There are any number of expenditures by governments from sugar subsidies
to aircraft carriers that some people will assert are not good uses of
their tax dollars. (04)
If the suggestion was that the contract was obtained through bribery or
some illegal means, then you have a point. I did not see that accusation. (05)
We know that Azemet is not a fan of NeON. I have never seen anything in
the forum discussion before, that says that members must agree to
support a specific project regardless of their analysis of its value.
That would certainly not be in keeping with your description of the
forum as (06)
"All we are supposed to be, is a
good conversation (at the "watercooler" or the "tavern at the end of
the working day")." (07)
What would be interesting is a factual discussion about why NeON is a
I may have missed this but I have not seen anyone challenge Azemet's
points, only his right to say them.
It is time for NeOn's supporters to make their case. (08)
I would take issue with the characterization of the discussions in the
forum to be just "tavern talk".
While I confess that I am often unable to understand some of the topics,
I have a great deal of respect for the effort put in to tackle difficult
issues (often with difficult people) and provide a well organized and
reasoned approach to the subject at hand.
I am not enough of an expert to make a very credible analysis but I do
get a sense that some of the discussions are leading to better ways of
thinking about ontology and are breaking new ground. (09)
Peter Yim wrote:
> 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...
> [ppy] Gian and Azamat, please refer to my post at:
> 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.
> I think we all lose, if we start playing politics!
> 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!
> 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
> Again, I cordially request that you take this conversation elsewhere.
> Thanks in advance. =ppy
> 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
>> Azamat Abdoullaev
> 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 (012)