Agreed. Its a certainty that there
will always be forces in favor of more government to protect their privileges
throughout time. But SOME government is necessary, and too much is not QUITE
as bad as having no way to record property ownership, protect holdings, or
otherwise represent the vast citizenry capable of holding pitchforks and
marching on the bastille. So we Americans limp along, trying to reduce government
temporarily to remove some of the squeezed feeling.
Disaster happens when governments get too
powerful, but only a few places (Somalia,
Afghanistan,
..) suffer disasters from too little government.
But enough on this subject, since the list
is about ontology. Government regulation of ontologies is not as
desireable as private groups following their own commercial and protective
interests. The best standards have always been those that arose within
the markets – look at SQL 92, which was a sloppy, but enormously commercially
successful standard. Ontologies will go the same way, IMHO.
Remember how Ada – a beautiful and elegant systems
building language for its time – was overcontrolled to the point that no
company found it useful to build, maintain and grow that market. Too much
help.
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ron Wheeler
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011
11:35 AM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Quote
for the day
On 04/01/2011 1:49 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
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.
Yeah right. The
only good government is the one that the rich and powerful have bought and paid
for.
You may be right about the trend but it will lead to chaos and collapse of the
financial system due to greed and outright dishonestly by people who are not
accountable to anyone including those who put up the money.
Tight government regulation ( a near monopoly protected by extensive regulation)
is all that protected Canada's
financial system from the collapse of our principle trading partner's mortgage
and financial markets. Our banks and mortgage companies could be just as greedy
and foolish as our American cousins; we just don't let them.
On the other hand, I never saw a congress that passed less legislation than the
previous one.
They talk about less regulation but they still want power and control. The US government
grows at a pretty steady pace regardless of administrations.
They may favour certain sectors or behaviours that are different but in the
end, they still want control because they know that they will be held
accountable and they generally think that they know what the people want and
what is best for the country.
I am not sure that the financial crisis will result in better legislation or
more real accountability but I am pretty sure that it will result in more
reporting requirements and probably more government agencies wanting
information.
I see this as the biggest growth area for ontologists with the only challenge
coming from heathcare which will also be government driven.
Ron
-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
_________________________________________________________________
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