Rich,
The GPPN is neither an International Governmental Organization (IGO) nor
International Nongovernmental Organization (INGO), neither an international
non-profit entity nor multinational corporation.
Making a distinct category, it is emerging as a new global player in the
stage of the world affairs, as far as "all the world's a stage".
With or without the formal status of multi-stakeholder organization, the
GPPN is to comprise social networks and civil societies, governments and
government agencies, industry and industry groups, intergovernmental
organizations and non-governmental organizations, states and state agencies,
regional or municipal governments, and public and private companies, etc.,
to use its extensive collective knowledge and social and human capital to
play a decisive role in global ontology standards introduction, norms
establishment as well as global public policy debates.
Regards,
Azamat Abdoullaev (01)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Relating and Reconciling Ontologies (02)
> Azamat,
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> Instead, the EU should dissolve into states with more local focus and
> control by the citizens of said states.
>
> -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
> AzamatAbdoullaev
> Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 12:25 AM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Relating and Reconciling Ontologies
>
> 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
>
> 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
>
> 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
>
> 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
>
> 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
>
> also contributing."
> http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2003/spring_governance_benner.aspx.
> Some comments below.
> Azamat Abdoullaev
>
> ----- 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
>
>
>> 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
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (04)
|