ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Relating and Reconciling Ontologies

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:12:56 -0700
Message-id: <20110427161301.A9C69138CCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Azamat,    (01)

IMHO, the very last thing we need is yet another level of government that
can fail catastrophically, like every single one of the others has.
Instead, let the stakeholders alone so they can get the job done with as
little government interference, cost, and political diversion of citizen
moneies as possible.      (02)

Do you really want more regulation, more enforcement of bad regulations, and
more overhead costs to start new NGOs that suddenly have to meet the
impositions of a standoff government?    (03)

Instead, the EU should dissolve into states with more local focus and
control by the citizens of said states.      (04)

-Rich    (05)

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
AzamatAbdoullaev
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 12:25 AM
To: [ontolog-forum] 
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Relating and Reconciling Ontologies    (06)

Ron,
Floating the idea of the World Commission on Global Ontology, or the Gobal 
Standards Partnership, or the Universal Standards Network, it's important to    (07)

have in mind the key assumptions and best practice of Global Public Policy 
Networks (GPPN).
First, it's about developing global standards and regulations assisted with 
a consultive entity (the Global Standards Forum, which could have the 
Ontolog Forum as its first member)
Second, it's not a traditional hierarchical organization, but open, flexible    (08)

and dynamic.
Third, it's about bonding and bridging, coordination and negotiation, and 
implementation mechanisms.
Look at the exisiting good practice of GPPN:
 1. "Global Water Partnership (GWP), guided by a small secretariat in 
Stockholm, who collects and disseminates best practices and lessons learned 
in integrated water management programs.
Its central goal is to join all stakeholders from civil society, the private    (09)

sector, and the public sector into "water partnerships" on the local, 
national, regional, and global levels. Since its creation in 1996, it has 
established several regional and almost 20 national water partnerships in 
Central America, China, South East Asia, and South America, as well as West 
Africa. Representatives from the private sector, governments, and civil 
society serve on its board. Funding comes primarily from public sources but 
also from the Ford Foundation, the UN Development Program, and the World 
Bank."
2. "the World Commission on Dams (WCD), developing a catalogue of standards 
for large-dam construction based on a comprehensive analysis of large dams' 
economic, social, political, and cultural ramifications. The commission's 12    (010)

members represented the broad spectrum of stakeholder interests, from 
multinational construction companies to opponents from the NGO world."
3. "The Roll Back Malaria initiative (RBM), at the behest of the World 
Health Organization to better coordinate the fight against malaria, which 
causes at least 300 million cases of acute illness each year and is the 
leading cause of death in young children. ...Today RBM combines many groups 
under a single network roof. Companies such as Novartis, ExxonMobil, 
GlaxoSmithKline, and Procter & Gamble are working with NGOs such as Oxfam 
and the International Federation of the Red Cross, with several national 
governments lending financial support. The World Health Organization 
coordinates the work, with other UN agencies and international organizations    (011)

also contributing."
http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2003/spring_governance_benner.aspx.
Some comments below.
Azamat Abdoullaev    (012)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron Wheeler" <rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:13 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Relating and Reconciling Ontologies    (013)


> On 26/04/2011 1:26 PM, AzamatAbdoullaev wrote:
>> Anders Tell wrote:
>> "Normative considerations: who can mandate/direct the use of a "global"
>> ontology, what are the enforcement mechanisms and consequences for 
>> non-use,
>> are all issues that must be addressed."
>>
>> Just an idea to try. There is a new category of international 
>> organizations,
>> Global Public Policy Networks, along with the existing International
>> Nongovernmental Organizations (as UN, EU, WTO) and Intergovernmental
>> Organizations (as Int Olympic Committee).
>> It could be the World Commission on Global Ontology, the Gobal Standards
>> Partnership, or the Universal Standards Network, as multi-stakeholders
>> partnership, including members from civil societies, governments, 
>> government
>> agencies, industry groups, multilateral organizations/institutions, etc.
> Which big companies' interests would it serve?
It all about public good.
> Whose interests would it protect?
The general public interest.
> What current elected officials or high profile government departments
> heads would you nominate to direct such a thing.
No heads or elected officals. See the GWP management practice with a 
secretariat.
>
> It would likely be headed by people who could barely spell the words.
> Its major operational goal would be to prevent any standard from
> emerging that would negatively affect any US or EU Department's current
> IT infrastructure.
>
> Its first priority would be to spend millions on studies to determine
> how national and corporate self-determination could be preserved in case
> a universal ontology should be attempted by an educational institution
> or other NGO.
> Its second priority would be to prevent such a thing from happening by
> allocating all of its research budget on impact studies done by well
> connected think tanks who would rehash the comments from this forum into
> difficult-to-digest documents warning about the difficulty and
> disadvantages of creating a universal ontology.
>
> Its development budget would be spent sending senior people to
> conferences in nice places.
>
> Any left-over money would be paid to lobbiest to secure a larger budget
> next year.
>
> Ron
>
>> Azamat Abdoullaev
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Anders Tell"<opensource@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "[ontolog-forum] "<ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 12:54 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Relating and Reconciling Ontologies
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 25, 2011, at 7:53 PM, AzamatAbdoullaev wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Sowa wrote:
>>>> "I prefer to use the analogy with science.  Governments and businesses
>>>> are
>>>> sources of funding for science, but nobody can predict where the
>>>> next breakthrough will come from.
>>>> Indeed.
>>>> But let's float and field-test the idea of a global ontology as far as 
>>>> it
>>>> looks to be a life-and-death matter. We mentioned the world
>>>> representation/reasoning equation:
>>>> A Federated Ontology = A Global Ontology + Domain Ontologies.
>>>> Where the world representation is distributed between a central 
>>>> ontology
>>>> (maintaining a global schema, general semantics, and common
>>>> interoperability
>>>> framework) and multiple regional ontologies and specific information
>>>> sources.
>>> While global centralisation is a tempting approach it has some serious
>>> complications.
>>>
>>> Normative considerations: who can mandate/direct the use of a "global"
>>> ontology, what are the enforcement mechanisms and consequences for
>>> non-use, are all issues that must be addressed.
>>>
>>> Secondly: the benefits of a canonical grounding, it has proven to be the
>>> case that it often pays to be different (new business ideas, product
>>> differentiae, ...), that mistakes can be transformational/evolutionary
>>> forces. Research indicates that process standardisation/TQM etc. leads 
>>> to
>>> minor improvements but fewer larger innovations.
>>>
>>> Thirdly: Some time ago I made a small maturity ladder for explanatory
>>> purpose. With the steps: ad hoc, description, sharing, harmonization,
>>> standardization.
>>> Here important steps are Description and Sharing. Are the ontologies
>>> described in a way some that they can be used by all concerned? Is the
>>> description shared so that all concerned know where it is and have 
>>> access
>>> to it?
>>>
>>> Fourthly: In an ecosystem setting the notions of self-purpose and
>>> self-regulation are of interest. Then maybe Harmonization (coordinating
>>> ends) should be the target maturity level instead of a mandated global
>>> standard (single ends)?
>>>
>>> Fifthly:  Systems (man made) are often related to life cycles (and life
>>> span), investments have a horizon etc. How long is the life expectancy 
>>> of
>>> a global ontological system with its commitments? How does this life 
>>> cycle
>>> correlate with the life cycles of all affected systems?
>>>
>>> Sixthly: If agreeing (on concepts, assumptions,..) is complicated then
>>> Disagreement management is an interesting approach that could complement
>>> static mappings with a process component.
>>>
<http://www.slideshare.net/EagleBear/ambjrn-on-disagreement-managment-988233
>
>>>
>>>
>>> /Anders W. Tell
>>> -- Changing the enterprise, one point-of-view at a time --
>>> / Language of Enterprise Systems&  Architectures - LESA /
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>     (014)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (015)



_________________________________________________________________
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    (016)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>