On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 1:22 PM EST Kingsley Idehen wrote: (01)
>On 10/27/11 11:33 AM, 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.
I think the core issue that is responsible for the slow progress in data
federation is lack of reasoning capabilities supported by linked data
standards. This issue had Ben discussed many times on the ontolog forum.
Ontologies differ from databases which offer sound and complete inference in
feasible time/space. This why most common federation tecnnique is federated
>> This is a multi-billion dollar opportunity to address a pervasive and
>recognized problem. Let's get on with it.
>> 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]
>>> [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
>I've just published a note on G+ about enterprise Linked Data and how it
>addresses the thorny issue of data virtualization across heterogenous
>data silos. As per usual, I've included links to live examples that
>showcase the effects outlined in the post.
>We have to be able to loosely couple data, information, and knowledge.
>This is something hyperlinks handle very well once we get past
>distracting syntax wars re. how to represent data objects via directed
>graph pictorials. etc..
>1. http://goo.gl/8I3KB -- G+ post about the importance of enterprise
>linked data .
>Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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 (05)