Dear David, (01)
There may be a single reason why OMG can't do it,
Cyc can't do it, SUMO, SUO, SemWeb, and all the
other attempts couldn't do it either. I wonder
what that single reason may be? (02)
-Rich (03)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (04)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of David Price
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 9:16 AM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Solving the
information federation problem (05)
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. (06)
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. (07)
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. (08)
Cheers,
David (09)
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
>
> -----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?OntologySu
mmit/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)
--
Managing Director and Consultant
TopQuadrant Limited. Registered in England No.
05614307
UK +44 7788 561308
US +1 336-283-0606 (011)
__________________________________________________
_______________
Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
orum/
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?WikiHomePa
ge#nid1J (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|