Thanks Peter,
I have posted a suggestion on the ontology summit page as you suggested. I
would also be happy to explore a tread on the topic and have therefor changed
the title. The initial message, below, can serve as a problem statement. (01)
I would like to point out one clear fact: That with all the great work, tools,
research and products available - the problem of information federation still
exists and is getting worse. What we have now is either not working or not
resonating. We don't need and probably can't produce a 100% solution - we
don't have to. Making a 20% improvement in our ability to federate information
and exchange data would be of immense benefit to companies, governments and
society. I think we can do better than 20% and part of that is accepting that
the 100% solutions are not currently practical. We have to make the solution
set (of which ontologies are only a part), tractable and practical for
widespread adoption - that has not been the track record so far. (02)
This is a multi-billion dollar opportunity to address a pervasive and
recognized problem. Let's get on with it. (03)
Regards,
Cory Casanave (04)
-----Original Message-----
From: peter.yim@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:peter.yim@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Yim
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 7:00 PM
To: Cory Casanave
Cc: steve.ray@xxxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
Subject: [OT] process clarification [was - Re: [ontolog-forum] Some Grand
Challenge proposal ironies] (05)
Cory, (06)
> [CoryC] An area of interest to me and many of our clients is solving the
>information federation problem. ... (07)
[ppy] A good topic indeed. However ... (08)
1. if you are suggesting that folks discuss this "information federation
problem" on [ontolog-forum], please consider starting a new thread (with a
proper subject line) and move forward from there; or (09)
2. if you are suggesting we (you addressing to Steve, following a remark of his
regarding the Ontology Summit indicates that this might have been your
purpose), it would be helpful if you condense the proposition to, say, a short
theme/title, with a brief (short
paragraph) description and post it to the
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit/Suggestions
page (like what Christopher has done), and then, via a message post, highlight
that suggestions, and take it forward similarly. (010)
(That would help allow this thread to stay on point to discuss what Christopher
is trying here.) (011)
Thanks & regards. =ppy
-- (012)
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Cory Casanave <cory-c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Ray,
> An area of interest to me and many of our clients is solving the information
>federation problem. The problem needs no introduction to the mainstream I.T.
>community as problems associated with information federation cost lives,
>productivity and billions of dollars a year. They may call it the "data
>problem", data integration, "master data", application integration or a few
>other names - but the problem remains the same, understanding and using data
>from independently conceived resources together. Often this involves using
>data for purposes outside of its original design intent.
>
> While this is well established as a use-case for Ontologies there are
>certainly other use cases as well. The concerns of information federation are
>not the same as the concerns of these other ontology use cases (such as proof)
>and this may result in differences in ontological approach, languages, tooling
>and even theories. Federated data is inherently distributed, uncoordinated,
>messy and conflicting - yet there is value in leveraging these disparate data
>resources in a more unified way. It is not always clear how "neat" solutions
>work in this unstructured world, yet the very "scruffy" solutions seem to be
>insufficient. Discussions of this problem that involve, for example, the OWL,
>Linked Data and Common Logic communities result in theoretical and sometimes
>religious wars that can and have frightened potential consumers of the
>technology away.
>
> A position of the community on this question could help the application of
>ontologies, ontological tooling and ontological approaches to this important
>problem.
>
> Regards,
> Cory Casanave (013)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve Ray
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 1:34 AM
> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Some Grand Challenge proposal ironies
>
> I'm a little concerned that this Ontology Chemistry theme is more of a grand
>project/product proposal rather than a topic for consensus and articulation of
>a position on the part of the ontology community, which is the nature of the
>Ontology Summit.
>
> Steven R. Ray, Ph.D.
> Distinguished Research Fellow
> Carnegie Mellon University
> NASA Research Park
> Building 23 (MS 23-11)
> P.O. Box 1
> Moffett Field, CA 94305-0001
> Email: steve.ray@xxxxxxxxxx
> Phone: (650) 587-3780
> Cell: (202) 316-6481 (014)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Christopher Spottiswoode
> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 11:37 AM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: [ontolog-forum] Some Grand Challenge proposal ironies
>
> All,
>
> Here are the first questions I imagined as your very valid responses to my
>post introducing the notion of "Ontology Chemistry" as the basis of a Grand
>Challenge that I am asserting will revolutionize Software Engineering (SE).
> (That post is now archived at
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2011-10/msg00088.html .)
>
> Q1: On the wiki at
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit/Suggestions the target
>you propose for a Grand Challenge is a bootstrap for an intended new
>ecosystem. Presumably that involves producing a programmed product?
>
> A: Yes indeed, that's the basic starter platform. It's that initial or seed
>"Application Operating System" (or AOS) I've already introduced on this forum
>at odd times.
>
> Q2: But why make a Grand Challenge of what is normally an in-house
> product development? (It even seems to have started out as one?)
>
> A: (Yes it did, and I've already done some significant C coding for
> it in a
> win32 environment.) The Challenge answer starts on slide 21 of the X Prize
>presentation referred to on the Ontolog page you've just cited.
> These are the first questions for anyone trying to design a Grand
> Challenge:
>
>> Have you targeted a problem where a market failure exists?
>> Where the normal forces of capitalism will not solve the problem?
>> Does your prize address the underlying market failure?
>
> Q3: So the "market failure" you're addressing here is your own?
>
> A: Though you realize that's not really what they had in mind, yes, that is
>partly the case. Sure. But my failure so far has not been in the conception
>of the product or its market. (Far from it! To a remarkable degree there has
>for several decades been an ever greater convergence of many current trends
>with the course I've long been embarked on.) No, my failure has primarily
>been in not having been able to sell the still productless idea to colleagues
>as possible collaborators, despite having tried on the web from time to time
>since 1996.
>
> But that failure is for quite objective reasons too. Anybody can relate to
>the suggestion that one notion can be said to underlie the need side of the
>universal market I claim to be addressing: complexity.
> Complexity and our continual disasters as we fail to handle it appropriately.
> Surely we can better broach and deal with the given complexity of reality?
> There's no need to wax all philosophical about it either, because it's
>commonly a very real and pressing problem in our everyday social and
>individual lives, as it is in our SE domain.
> "Complexity" was even the title of Chapter 1 of the 1994 book, Object
>Oriented Analysis and Design with Applications, by Grady Booch of the Three
>Amigos behind UML. But naming the problem is not solving it.
>
> So it is probably rather misguidedly that I have long tried to
> describe the objective of the proposed product as "to help people
> simplify complexity together". Depending on whom I'm talking to, it has
>unfailingly fallen flat and - I imagine - been generally dismissed as either
>useless clichi or abstract mystification.
>
> In such ways I have been trying rather ham-handedly for some years to find
>others to join in on the project. But after all it's no surprise:
> that elephant seems so gigantic, the basic reality is so horrendous, so any
>project facing up to it has to be deemed incredible, tantamount to "boiling
>the ocean", probably delusional, and at least "impractical for us". Lesser
>obstacles have been NIH, and my still too idiosyncratic depictions of the
>concept and project.
>
> More interestingly, there's also a rather fundamental and inescapable bug in
>the whole notion (though we'll be accepting it as an important feature of the
>proposed new scene too): evolution in general suboptimizes with merely
>stepwise improvements. And here I am, proposing that we try to leap that
>canyon?
>
> Q4: So the idea of a Grand Challenge is to dare to leap the Grand Canyon?
>
> You could put it that way.
>
> Q5. But then surely it is indeed delusional to try?
>
> It would seem so. So my next posts will be immeasurably more positive.
> The "phenomenon of knowledge" throughout our past shows us how we might in
>future more confidently and appropriately grasp the nettle of complexity.
>
> Widespread present SE market failures also provide useful perspectives, as
>well as opportunities for leapfrogging many serious obstacles in the present
>Internet-based SE ecosystems.
>
> All that background will be handy for an enumeration of many possible
>arguments to use when approaching potential funders.
>
> Then with such bogeymen less feared, we can start getting down to the
>relevant detail of the proposed new architecture and AOS. More detailed and
>appealing outlines of the suggested Grand Challenge will emerge.
>
> Christopher
>
>
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1831 / Virus Database: 2092/4572 - Release Date:
> 10/24/11
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (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)
|