Hi Ron, comments below,
-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: Monday, January 10, 2011 12:41 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Quote for the day
On 10/01/2011 12:31 PM, Rich
Cooper wrote:
> Mike,
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> I think the whole thing
is far too complex to be solved by an ontology or
> collection thereof
within present technology. It will take far more than
> that to organize
structure and evaluate transactions. Each party to each
> transaction has a unique
view for a unique set of personal goals, whether
> selling or buying.
Economics works because parties to a transaction can
> both believe they got
the better deal for their own purposes. If everything
> is described objectively
and unambiguously (I question whether that is even
> possible), neither side
would be motivated to conduct that side of the
> transaction.
What?????
I am moving to New York and someone in New York is selling a house
because they are moving to
LA, surely nether of us will be deterred by
knowing the facts that the
other person knows.
You're
right - I underspecified as usual. I should have said that the cost of
selling one house and buying another (i.e., the direct costs of the transaction)
would not have been paid had you not had such an agenda, so it is not the
STATIC, OBJECTIVE valuation of the house by the market at large that drives the
transaction, it is the utility of the transaction experienced differently by
the two parties for their own subjective reasons.
So
you have an agenda, valuing the factor of location more than
if
you had been staying in your present place. The LA mover's agenda
doesn’t lead her to value the New
York location any more, so she sells it to you and is
also glad to make the transaction. Those two agendas drive the
transaction.
The
point I wanted to make (clearly not the one that came across) is that the
objective value of the house is not so much an issue as the personal motivation
of buyer and seller. That is a subjective choice which drives the
transaction, and as long as the house is priced within a reasonable amount of
what each party values, it will close.
I go to the store all the
time and buy broccoli. The fact that me and
the merchant know broccoli
does not change his desire to sell it and
mine to buy it.
Again,
personal agendae drive the transaction, not the cost of broccoli, which has a
secondary effect. If too high, you might have chosen cauliflower instead,
but you would still have bought food of one kind or another. The grocer wants
to clear the store of perishables in a timely manner, not caring about broccoli
or cauliflower so long as the turnover is efficient and not wasteful.
If I am selling a stock that
I think will go up, to take advantage of a
tax loss that I can use to
offset the capital gain, the other person
will more than willing to buy
it if they think that it will go up as well.
Again,
my apologies for underspecifying - seller and buyer clearly have different
agendae for buying and selling stock.
Even US government
bonds sell by the billions everyday between people
who have pretty much the same
idea of their worth. The have different
needs that prompts them to
trade but it is not lack of information that
makes the deal go down.
HTH,
-Rich
> Sorry to be so
pessimistic, but I think ontologies will have to be
> restricted to very
narrow domains for another generation or two. Until we
> really understand
people, and the how and why of their activities, we don't
> have much chance of
building functional large scale ontologies.
>
> The Dublin core was an accepted ontology
precisely because it is the
> smallest, least
committed ontology for its purpose. I think the ontologies
> that get good reception
will be similar to DC for quite a long time.
>
> There is something still
missing - accounting for individual perspectives -
> that must be much better
formulated before commercial ontologies become well
> used.
>
I think that it is more
likely that the causes are
1) Tools that are too
complicated and not integrated into "traditional"
business processing
frameworks.
2) No one wants to think that
hard about anything.
Once these problems are
resolved, organizations will use eco-systems of
ontologies that are made up
of compatible (or interfaceable) ontologies
from various internal and
external sources to define their business
processes. There will be no
equivalent of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the
Galaxy (or its competitors)
that will answer all of your questions about
the universe.
> JMHO,
> -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 Mike Bennett
> Sent: Monday, January
10, 2011 7:46 AM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re:
[ontolog-forum] Quote for the day
>
> That is very interesting.
It is through examples like this, that
> one should be able to
demonstrate (or demonstrably fail to
> demonstrate) the
benefits of ontology engineering in its broadest
> sense, i.e. formally and
consistently stating facts about the world.
>
> Whether everyone wants
everything seen is a separate matter, the
> solutions to which are
more political than technical I would
> suggest.
>
> Mike
>
> On 04/01/2011 18:37,
Rich Cooper wrote:
>> Mike,
>>
>> Even the highly
regulated escrow processes are far too idiosyncratic to be
>> modified so the
business geeks can take control from the technical geeks.
>> If you have ever
gone through escrow, and found those surprises that pop
> up
>> when the CC&Rs
restrict the purchaser in many unenforceable ways, and then
>> tried to live within
the CC&Rs, you will know what I mean. The "standard"
>> parts are so small
compared to the bulk of the data that passes through
>> escrow and out the
other end to purchaser, governments, seller, title
>> company, insurance
company and local planning staff.
>>
>> About a year ago, I
worked on a case where a purchaser had flipped an
>> apartment building
and gotten a major markup of nearly twice the realistic
>> value of the building
on which to borrow the purchase money! The title
>> company had missed
the flip, and yet had boasted on their web site about
> how
>> ISO 9000/9001
compliant their software was. Then they blamed the error on
>> the computer!
>>
>> I was able to show
that ISO 9001 compliance would have been impossible
> with
>> a computer error
like that. The bank that provided the purchase loan had
>> only been given the
second part of the flip, leading to them thinking that
>> the apartment
building had sold for only a little more than it was bought
>> for a couple years
ago - false information. Of course, in the real estate
>> market which has
really gotten screwed up in the last few years, the
>> apartment building
owners were unable to pay for the loan after buying the
>> building, and the
bank was nonplussed.
>>
>> My point is
this. The complexity and idiosyncrasies of business
>> transactions are so
market-, buyer- and seller-specific that the
> likelihood
>> of predicting all
the ontological columns needed to model the transactions
>> is very, very
low. I don't consider that a likely scenario in my
> lifetime.
>> But then I am rather
old also. Maybe after HAL gets built it will be
> fine.
>>
>> JMHO,
>> -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 Mike Bennett
>> Sent: Tuesday,
January 04, 2011 3:49 AM
>> To: [ontolog-forum]
>> Subject: Re:
[ontolog-forum] Quote for the day
>>
>> I think you have hit
the nail on the head. The financial industry
>> does not lack
precision. Not only simple monetary instruments
>> (whose meaning is as
primitive as it gets) but more complex
>> financial
instruments, whose meaning is grounded in contract and
>> law.
>>
>> The ambiguity sets
in when various technical folks get hold of
>> what are originally
precise terms, and shoe horn them into
>> various different
databases with different data structures, put
>> unexpected new (but
precise) terms into existing data fields that
>> also house data with
different meanings, then devise message
>> schemes that get
these from place to place, all without formal
>> reference to the
original, existing, precise business meanings.
>> And without business
review and oversight of what this data is
>> becoming in the
arcane world of data, because they have left it
>> to the data geeks to
deal with it.
>>
>> Until one day the
world wakes up and realises that no-one knows
>> exactly what their
exposure is to anyone else.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> On 04/01/2011 02:45,
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.
>>>
>>> John
>>>