JS wrote:
"Although I have disagreed with you about many issues, I share your concern
about flushing money down the toilet on that technology." (01)
John, (02)
Kindly share your wisdom and experience how to stop or at least to put on
the rails this semantic bandwagon driven by...
I suggest that the reason of such irrational situations with huge waste
funding is the lack of clear criteria of research projects in the hot field
of knowledge and semantic technologies. First of all, the want of baseline
ontology of top classes and meanings, which could filter out the defective
projects as well.
If you agree, then it is necessary to speed up all kind of works on the
standard ontology system (as the SOS ontology), pooling existent intelligent
resources and leaving aside all our ambitions and partisanship. Might be
reanimating again the SUO listing, as far as it has a high status of IEEE
standard candidate? Thanks.
Azamat (03)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 12:59 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] What is a good conversation? (04)
> Azamat,
>
> All of those are interesting research projects, but they seem to
> be funded as development projects. That is a recipe for developing
> technology that is obsolete before it is delivered:
>
> > The deliverables were/are promised to be: open networked ontologies,
> > SW services infrastructure, generic semantic reference infrastructure,
> > semantic architecture, semantic-based search engines, integration
> > of heterogeneous data sources, mashups, knowledge content objects,
> > argumentation systems, knowledge-based business intelligence, even
> > the large knowledge collider.
>
> Google, for example, is the most commercially successful WWW business
> on Planet Earth. But they don't use Semantic Web technology. They
> use their own tools based on JSON rather than RDF or OWL. Google
> has hired many of the best and brightest graduates from universities
> around the world. If they don't believe that the SW technology is
> useful as a foundation for the future, that raises very serious
> doubts about the wisdom of the European semantics projects.
>
> Although I have disagreed with you about many issues, I share your
> concern about flushing money down the toilet on that technology.
>
> John
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|