[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Solving the information federation problem

To: Cory Casanave <cory-c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 08:47:53 -0700
Message-id: <CAGdcwD0CYwkO41v1==rX0qvoNv3osC4i38NvL=E18SwvJYfjOg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Yes ... I can't agree more!  Thanks, Cory. =ppy
--    (01)

On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Cory Casanave <cory-c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
> This is a multi-billion dollar opportunity to address a pervasive and 
>recognized problem.  Let's get on with it.
> Regards,
> Cory Casanave    (02)

> -----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]
> Cory,
>> [CoryC] An area of interest to me and many of our clients is solving the 
>information federation problem. ...
> [ppy]  A good topic indeed. However ...
> 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
> 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 
> page (like what Christopher has done), and then, via a message post, 
>highlight that suggestions, and take it forward similarly.
> (That would help allow this thread to stay on point to discuss what 
>Christopher is trying here.)
> Thanks & regards. =ppy
> --    (03)

> 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 
>> Regards,
>> Cory Casanave    (04)

>> -----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    (05)

>> -----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 
>> 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    (06)

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    (07)

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