Sorry, Duane. I don't have a link. It was a verbal comment made by a Swedish
Defense Ministry person during a meeting on interoperability that I attended
in Stockholm in the 2005 timeframe. I'd be surprised if this was publicly
acknowledged at the time they were following the policy. (01)
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Duane Nickull
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 11:47 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]; 'deddy'
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Architectural considerations in Ontology
On 2013-02-16 4:23 PM, "Hans Polzer" <hpolzer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: (04)
>This reminds me of the fact that during the Cold War the Swedish
>military deliberately made their systems non-interoperable with those
>of other countries (like NATO nations) because they didn't want any
>invading troops to be able to use any equipment they might capture.
Being of Swedish descent, I was not aware of this. Is there a link? I know
the Americans used the Navajo language for cryptographic constructs.
Was not aware of this. (05)
Technoracle Advanced Systems Inc.
Consulting and Contracting; Proven Results!
i. Neo4J, PDF, Java, LiveCycle ES, Flex, AIR, CQ5 & Mobile b.
http://technoracle.blogspot.com t. @duanenickull Whis.pr - http://whis.pr (07)
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 (08)