Nice catch! My explanation of the
technology development economics below is also concerned with how long to
useful, though you may prefer to start a new thread on cost, schedule and
risk. I will try to post useful messages for this thread if more thoughts
occur to me in that vein.
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Eddy
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:25
How long to useful?
At the request of William Frank... a new thread,
On May 30, 2012, at 3:02 PM, William Frank wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:37 PM, David Eddy <deddy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 30, 2012, at
2:22 PM, John Bottoms wrote:
7. Time, how long will it take, do the parties have
that much time?
Way back in the
early '80s when were we coming to the end of green fields systems (e.g. pretty
much all the big, important, necessary functions had been automated at least
once), it was observed that it took a minimum of 4 years to do a serious
system... & most organizations simply did not have the attention span...
sponsors change, markets change, technology fashion shifts, etc.
Thirty years later,
things are far, far more complex—mainframe, midrange, client/server, web, Mobile coming, etc. These additional layers of
complexity—each with their own twists on language, jargon, slang, organization,
taxonomy, etc.—do not make for moving quickly.
attention span is well under 3 years. If I'm on the upward bound
management track & something isn't going to punch my ticket in less than 3
years, it's not going to happen.
Just how does
ontology fit into that equation?