[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Adrian Walker <adriandwalker@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:14:07 -0400
Message-id: <CABbsESd04dzF21B44uzSLboJfkmTvG=jgCScREaRaxh_w7Ymsw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi David, Cory & All,

[ Reposting this under the new heading that Peter rightly suggested ]

Cory  wrote...

An area of interest to me and many of our clients is solving the information federation problem.

Here's an example of an approach in which meaning is assigned to data from diverse sources, in executable English: 


The file is an ontology of sorts, and is also application code that one can view , edit and run using a browser.  There are English explanations of the results.

Here's a short overview of the underlying technology:


Apologies if you have seen this before, and thanks for comments.

                      -- Adrian
Internet Business Logic
A Wiki and SOA Endpoint for Executable Open Vocabulary English Q/A over SQL and RDF
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com   
Shared use is free, and there are no advertisements

Adrian Walker
Phone: USA 860 830 2085

On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 12:15 PM, 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

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.


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?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

Managing Director and Consultant
TopQuadrant Limited. Registered in England No. 05614307
UK +44 7788 561308
US +1 336-283-0606

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    (01)

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