Hi David, (01)
While I don't disagree with your that this is not the
"Ontolog-typical" concern ... Ontolog conversations are what we
(collectively) make them to be, as long as they are consistent with
and relevant to our community charter - ref.
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nidB ... (02)
And, for those of us who believe Ontology promises a possible solution
to the problem Cory posed (which I think that counts for most of us),
then Ontolog Forum is the place (or, at least, one of the places.) (03)
Considering the percentage of data that Cory has in mind now residing
*on* vs *off* the web, it does not necessarily follow that this
problem belongs in the W3C either. (04)
I think the problem belongs to the few who care enough to push the
agenda, and a community whose members are willing to put their smarts
into tackling it. (05)
... I still think we (Ontolog Forum) are a contender! (06)
Best regards. =ppy
-- (07)
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 9:15 AM, David Price <dprice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> There are of course things that organizations can do to start improving
> the situation, but they have little to do with Ontolog-typical concerns
> and so I doubt that the Ontolog Forum is the place to 'get on with' this
> problem.
>
> I think it's pretty clear now that the OMG cannot do it either - as has
> been proven by the lack of progress on SIMF despite a valiant effort on
> your part. FWIW it's very hard to push through the OMG 'everything is a
> meta-model' and 'vested interests' barriers. Luckily, it seems to me
> that a new language is actually pretty far down the list of important
> mechanisms/approaches wrt information federation anyway.
>
> Cory, this problem belongs in the W3C. I suggested that to you
> previously, and the events of the past year have made that fact even
> more clear in my mind - the solution has to be based in Web and Internet
> standards and technologies. The Goverment Linked Open Data WG and the
> RDB2RDF WG are examples of practical things happening in the W3C that
> will hopefully make some real progress possible. More of that kind of
> thing, perhaps more focused at this particular problem, seems like the
> only practical way forward to me.
>
> Cheers,
> David
> --
> Managing Director and Consultant
> TopQuadrant Limited. Registered in England No. 05614307
> UK +44 7788 561308
> US +1 336-283-0606 (08)
> On 10/27/2011 4:33 PM, Cory Casanave 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 (09)
>> -----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
>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.
>>
>> (That would help allow this thread to stay on point to discuss what
>Christopher is trying here.)
>>
>>
>> Thanks& regards. =ppy (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|