thanks for the thought. I tend to prefer
a deep thread that tracks objections, suggestions, changes in viewpoint and so
on, over a buncha shallower threads that focus on a buncha narrower topics
within the overall subject. Maybe that’s because my personality type is the xNTP
(if you practice the Myers Brigs personality profiles for understanding people).
I am always amazed at the attorneys I work with who will diddle every single
tree in the forest – they tend to be extreme xSxJ types in MB terms. It seems
that about 25% of the population falls into each of these classes, so the
attitudes change with the personality.
Every so often, posters suggest a new
thread name, but I personally see all this material as related specifically to self
interest. And I think that a database of text fragments that are indexed and
efficiently organized for understanding text is the way to process text for
self interest. Please see my response to John Bottoms below for a deeper
explanation of how I am working to organize the text.
I also see Chomsky as an excellent source
of highly rational thought, so starting with his observations, tracking his
theories about the political structure, corporate actions, and individual
behaviors (which he researches and validates based on corroborating sources).
Therefore, Chomsky’s writings, along with the corroborating sources, can
provide a more logically consistent and complete corpus to load into said
That is why I prefer to treat this thread
as a longer term topic instead of breaking it into smaller topics with the same
messages filed differently.
Thanks for the suggestion though. I guess
its just my personality that drives my selection of topic names.
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Frank
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology
this is a critically
important and interesting subject, in its own right. It seems to me to be
quite different from self interest ontology, even though of course self
interest is involved in the question.
Might you want to introduce it as a new thread?
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:37 PM, David Eddy <deddy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On May 30, 2012, at 2:22 PM, John Bottoms wrote:
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
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
Plus, management's 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?
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