On the financial front, the EDM Council is funding me to do exactly as
you describe (funded by financial firms and other industry
participants). When the ISO 20022 messaging standard is reissued in a
couple of years or so it will have a "semantic" layer driving the
logical and physical models, and the EDM Council content will likely
find a home in that. Meanwhile, as you say, people are making it happen. (01)
We have a lot of interest from regulators, as we are working on a proof
of concept for something that regulators can do or require in the future
(tagging securities data at source against semantics). I believe this
proof of concept was even mentioned in the introduction to a US bill
recently on systemic risk regulation. (02)
So basically yes, you are right. (03)
Ron Wheeler wrote:
> John F. Sowa wrote:
>> I agree. In fact, that is one reason why I believe that this project
>> should be hosted on neutral grounds, rather than an organization that
>> is dedicated to one specific technology or family of technologies.
> This is important.
>> Absolutely. And the metadata should also include (or at least point to)
>> reviews, evaluations, and case studies of applications of each ontologyna
>> by people other than the developers.
> I think that the reviews and statements of compatibility between
> overlapping and complementary ontologies will be needed provide users
> with the ability to pick components to incorporate into applications.
>> PC> The biggest problem I anticipate is simply that [the project] is
>> > very complex and time-consuming, and in the absence of funding will
>> > move very slowly.
>> Actually, it is extremely modular, and each step along the way is
>> useful by itself. For example, step #1 could consist of a one-level
>> hierarchy that contains several different ontologies hanging off the
>> top node: OpenCyc, SUMO, DOLCE, BFO, etc.
>> Most of the work would consist of developing guidelines that specify
>> formats, the kind of information that should be included, and the
>> various topics we have been discussing in this and other notes.
>> The actual work of massaging the ontologies and gathering whatever
>> information should be included would be done by the people who
>> develop each ontology (or some user group associated with it).
> I agree. The organizations that use the components will have an interest
> in funding organizations that commit to creation on the actual data.
>> SourceForge is an example of an organization that maintains an
>> open-ended number of contributions with a minimal amount of funding.
>> But we should go several steps beyond SourceForge in vetting the
>> contributions and ensuring that they meet the guidelines.
> Peer review and an editorial board in any subject area that attracts a
> lot of authors will likely resolve this issue organically. Wikipedia is
> a decent model of how a large number of people can contribute with some
> level of usability of the final product.
> Standards bodies would have an interest in providing editorial support
> for their areas of expertise.
>> The number of steps beyond SourceForge depends on two things:
>> money and/or volunteers. With enough volunteers, you don't
>> need much money. With enough money, you can buy volunteers.
>> And with some promising initial steps, I would hope we could
>> attract some of both.
> Once there is some evidence of progress, funding will flow to the
> project. This will grow as large organizations start to incorporate the
> ontologies into their critical processes. For example, banks,
> regulators, financial institutions, etc. will fund the ontology
> development that creates the underpinnings of their transaction
> processing and regulatory reporting system. They will not wait for a
> volunteer to document their next financial instrument.
> The ontologies used to support the medical billing transactions between
> providers, insurance companies and government will not be short of friends.
>> 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
89 Worship Street
London EC2A 2BF
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7917 9522
Mob: +44 (0) 7721 420 730
Registered in England and Wales No. 2461068 (06)
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 (07)