Re: [ontolog-forum] What is a good conversation?

[Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

 

I am Pavithra Kenjige,  I have recently joined this group.        I am an Information technology professional, and an independent IT management consultant,  and interested in Enterprise Architecture, information security, Systems Engineering  related topics.    I have work experience and education background in those areas as well ( US federal and commercial).

 

I have been reading about this topic thread, and pardon me for intruding:

 

But Google has recently announced support for semantic search.

http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Google_Adds_Semantic_Search_Technology_36198.html

 

They seem to use multitude of technologies.   Here are some articles on the technologies that google uses:

 

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/technologies-behind-google-ranking.html

 

http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html

 

I could give more links,  but a google search would provide the same..

 

Regards,

Pavithra Kenjige

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- On Sun, 4/12/09, Christopher Spottiswoode <cms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Christopher Spottiswoode <cms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] What is a good conversation?
To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sunday, April 12, 2009, 2:04 PM

Azamat,

You ask:
> ... how to stop [some bandwagon] ?

I can't answer that one, but I will resurrect a saying which in the 1990s I
would put into almost every web page about my work.  It is from Peter Medawar,
Nobel-winning biologist, so I would call it Medawar's Dictum:

    A theory is not displaced by facts, it is replaced by a better theory.

Wonderful realism!  And I am still set on trying to follow it.  Then if the
result puts some imposters in their place, or sets straight some who are lost,
that is merely by the way, as the better theory and its fruits will be the real
reward.  Meanwhile do by all means criticize other theories, but only insofar as
it might help delineate your own.

But then, your last paragraph does look more positive, which is good.  (Just
don't count me in on that particular project, though, as my approach is more
like Amanda's, as in my earlier post today.)

Good luck and have fun, anyway!

Christopher

----- Original Message -----
From: "Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] What is a good conversation?


JS wrote:
"Although I have disagreed with you about many issues, I share
your  concern about flushing money down the toilet on that technology."

John,

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

----- 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?


> 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

_________________________________________________________________
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)