Hi Ron,
You wrote
... I think that there are opportunities now for some
companies that have the vision to build useful tools that accelerate the
process of
compliance to the new government reporting
requirements that are coming out in response to terrorism, the financial crisis
and by an increasing desire in the part of politicians on all sides in all
jurisdictions to talk about reducing wasteful regulation while wanting to
control everything and the expectation that the various government agencies
will monitor everything and instantly see patterns and individual transactions
that pose a threat to society.
Actually, I think the trend now is to get rid of government regulation because
it has been inefficient, infeasible, incorrect and ineffective. But then,
governments have the guns to make their way heard if not listened to. Only
by getting back to the business and technical issues, and eliminating as much government
interference as possible, will lead to economic growth and prosperity. The
government is the problem, not the solution, to most issues we have today.
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ron Wheeler
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 6:52 AM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Quote for the day
On 03/01/2011 9:45 PM, John F. Sowa wrote:
> Ron and Pat,
>
> People have been defining standard terminologies and
specifications
> for many centuries before anybody taught them to use the
"O" word.
>
> RW:
>> I would think that local conformance concerns should be
addressed by
>> extensions and processes around an internationally agreed
ontology.
>> Having an unambiguous description of goods and services
crossing borders
>> (customs, homeland security, environment, regulatory
reporting, etc.)
>> would seem to provide a clear ROI for development of
ontologies.
> Many *centuries* before computers were invented, governments and
> international standards bodies developed standards for navigation,
> geographical coordinates, time, units of measure, screw threads,
> wheat grains, chemical compounds, etc. Note that the terms
"Julian"
> and "Gregorian" for dates refer to Julius Caesar and
Pope Gregory.
>
> RW:
>> I would think that a universal description of a financial
instrument
>> would facilitate international trading of that security.
> The Sumerians baked those financial instruments into clay tablets
> many millennia ago. Their successors were doing
international
> trade across the Silk Road from China
to Europe and Africa over
> three millennia ago. The Phoenicians invented the alphabet
to
> keep track of all the goods they were shipping from port to
> port around the Mediterranean to the British
Isles.
>
> The modern definitions were established by the Italian bankers
> half a millennium ago. Their successors were using
international
> electronic funds transfer by telegraph for many decades before the
> Internet came along.
>
> PC:
>> The point I think is worth considering is that, unless one
actually
>> has a common vocabulary to describe one's models, there is no
way
>> to tell that they are in fact different.
> I certainly agree -- and so would Julius Caesar, Pope Gregory, and
> lots of Sumerians, Phoenicians, and Renaissance bankers.
>
> Before we try to sell them on the idea of using ontologies, we
have
> to show them some advantage. They know their business far
better than
> we do, they've been running it successfully for a long time, and
we
> need to show some clear value in this newfangled O-stuff.
>
> PC:
>> This suggests that the primitive elements may focus on
observable
>> phenomena, and perhaps also on mathematical or graphical
primitives
>> that can serve to build the mental models people use.
> Look at the words 'suggests', 'may, and 'perhaps'. That
sounds far
> too speculative to convince people who have been keeping precise
> records about billions and trillions of dollars of commerce.
>
> I really hope that the work on logic and ontology can succeed.
> But it has to do something better than what people have been
> doing already. Vague suggestions that may perhaps do
something
> someday aren't going to convince anybody.
Agreed.
I think that there are opportunities now for some companies that have
the vision to build useful tools that accelerate the process of
compliance to the new government reporting requirements that are coming
out in response to terrorism, the financial crisis and by an increasing
desire in the part of politicians on all sides in all jurisdictions to
talk about reducing wasteful regulation while wanting to control
everything and the expectation that the various government agencies
will
monitor everything and instantly see patterns and individual
transactions that pose a threat to society.
I am not sure what role this forum has in making the case for
integrating tools that support an ontological approach to this
increasingly complex problem.
Ron
> 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