[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Past, Present, and Future of Ontology

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 18:33:28 +0000 (GMT)
Message-id: <214909.47766.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Before you all forget:

The process of innovation...is characterised by the continuous emergence and constant negotiation of role definitions between ‘users’, ‘suppliers’, and ‘innovators’, each of which may be locked-in within their own development trajectories. The roles of users,

suppliers, and innovators are not distinct but inter-dependent, as technologies grow increasingly systemic. In such an environment, the concept of the ‘market’ loses much of its meaning, as the various roles partially merge in a shared value network.

Because of the historical dominance of market-based theoretical frameworks, the dynamics of innovation in value networks are poorly understood. To understand technology transfer and diffusion in such environments, it is necessary to discard market-based theories and replace them with institutional and structural theories.


DiMaggio, P. J. 1988. Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional

Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment: 3-22. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Garud, R., Jain, S., & Kumaraswamy, A. 2002. Institutional entrepreneurship in the sponsorship of common technological standards: The case of Sun Microsystems and Java. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 196-214.

Garud, R. & Karnoe, P. 2003. Bricolage versus breakthrough: distributed and embedded agency intechnology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 32(2): 277-300.

Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structure. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Teece, D. J. 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6): 285-305.

Teece, D. J. 2006. Reflections on "Profiting from Innovation". Research Policy, 35(8): 1131-1146.

Regards, Frank

From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: [ontolog-forum] <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, 29 May, 2009 5:11:02 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Past, Present, and Future of Ontology

Well said.
I have just enough of a philosopher in me to spend some time on this forum.
But I intend to prove my claims.
Dick McCullough
----- Original Message -----
From: John Black
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 6:58 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Past, Present, and Future of Ontology


It seems pointless to me for you to continue to *argue* your claims here on this list, for it is well within your power to *prove* what you say your system can do - provided, of course, that what you say it can do is true! There are any number of peer-reviewed journals, conferences, companies, venture firms and business markets that would reward you highly if you can prove even half of what you claim to have accomplished. Why continue to assert your claims here against an unreceptive audience?! Go out and conquer the market! Then you can return here, triumphant and rich, and gloat if you want.


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>