On Sat, 2012-02-25 at 07:19 +0000, Matthew West wrote:
> Dear Paul,
>
> You have things the wrong way around again. (01)
Be that as it may, I'm obliged for your polite conversation. (02)
>
> Change is highly unlikely unless there is dissatisfaction with the current
> situation. Where there should be dissatisfaction, but there is none, may be
> the result of ignorance, a commodity of infinite supply. (03)
Well said, that is precisely what I meant. I used an actionable problem
statement ("defects in management practice") instead of the non-starter
"infinite ignorance". (04)
>
> So the real question is: Why have the proponents of semantic technologies
> not been able to demonstrate the business benefits that the adoption of
> those technologies would achieve? The same applies for ontologies.
> (05)
That's not quite the same question I took up with John, which (I
thought) was about supposed incompatibilities between available semantic
tools and concepts and the capacities, inclinations, and practices of
mainstream IT. But there are several closely related questions, so maybe
I'll start a fresh thread and outline my overall position so each
question can be debated in its place, with regard to the main context. (06)
> There is still the problem of conservatism - why should I do something when
> my competitor is not doing it? But there are in the end some people who will
> seize the opportunity, and when they succeed, the sheep will follow.
> (07)
Well said again. The marketplace rewards those who do only a little
better (or not quite as bad) as the rest. But the market does not work
directly on corporate IT departments. Poor IT performance is tolerated
until it is identified as a significant drag on the company's
performance--which brings us back around to our agreed point on
dissatisfaction and change. (08)
Regards,
--Paul (09)
> Regards
>
> Matthew West
> Information Junction
> Tel: +44 1489 880185
> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
> Skype: dr.matthew.west
> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
> and Wales No. 6632177.
> Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
> Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Tyson
> > Sent: 24 February 2012 22:57
> > To: [ontolog-forum]
> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] What goes into a Lexicon?
> >
> > On Thu, 2012-02-23 at 09:34 -0500, John F. Sowa wrote:
> >
> > > Any proposed technology that does not support smooth interoperability
> > > with mainstream IT will be ignored by mainstream IT.
> >
> > Hi John,
> >
> > That is true, but we needn't conclude that the semantics community must
> > supply simplified tools, concepts, or standards for the benefit of
> > mainstream IT. An IT department, like any other business unit, will
> > take
> > the path of least resistance to meet the demands placed upon it. If
> > there are no demands to improve the semantic circuits of the
> > enterprise,
> > there will be no uptake of semantic technology no matter how much like
> > bubblegum it tastes.
> >
> > Assuming there is room and need for improvement in the semantic
> > circuitry of an enterprise, there is an organizational management
> > solution with guaranteed results: chief executives should simply demand
> > that their IT departments produce demonstrable cost-effective
> > improvements in the semantic circuits by which their businesses
> > operate.
> > Grade them on it and hand out rewards and punishments accordingly.
> > There
> > will be a miraculous spike in semantic technology uptake and nary a
> > complaint about interoperability (or bad taste).
> >
> > That chief executives would never consider making such a demand, and
> > that they are not typically even aware of the damage their IT
> > departments have done to the semantic circuitry of their enterprise,
> > are
> > defects of management practice that no amount of easy or hard
> > technology
> > can resolve.
> >
> > Regards,
> > --Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (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)
|