I agree with all your examples and arguments. (02)
> Although you say you don't want to defend "silos", your subsequent
> comments actually do defend silos... (03)
What I should have said was that I don't want to use the word 'silo'
because it's too vague to be useful in any meaningful discussion. (04)
General principle: It is impossible to define the words 'legacy'
and 'silo' in a way that could precisely distinguish the good
aspects from the bad aspects. (05)
Many of the best things in civilization are legacies from our ancestors
from thousands of years ago. Some of the worst are innovations. (06)
> Shouldn't we be talking about the criteria used for determining
> which types of data model elements should be "desiloed", and what
> constitutes desilofication for such elements? Likewise, shouldn't
> we be looking at what context elements should be made explicitly
> accessible so that the so-called siloed data can be properly
> interpreted by those other systems that care to do so? (07)
I agree. But I'd prefer to use some neutral word like 'partition',
'domain', 'context', or 'box'. (08)
Actually, the word 'box' can become bad when people get "boxed in".
It's probably better to use a more abstract word like 'domain'.
Nobody complains about being domained. (09)
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 (011)