Re: [ontology-summit] [Making the Case] Elevator Pitch

[Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ron,

I do not disagree with anything that you say.  They are valid concerns.

In olden days 1950s or 1960s ( before my time) I believe people wrote their own operating systems and machine code too..

Now people  have gotten used to point and click and drag and drop etc without writting thier own code..  Mbile / on the go on the palm of my hand environment.

When we suggested m-strategy for Medical world in 2000, and technology did not have infrastructure or hardware support.  So it was on the hold, today a doctor can use his PDA and do research on latest medical alerts and case studies for new medication on the go..

I nearly lost my job in 2000 when I suggested bio metrics in smartchips for identification for patients for future architecture. I knew about Bio Metrics because India uses finger prints for identification verification even with illiterate  people who can not write his own signature. Biometrics like fingerprints or iris recognition works for unique identification. .  They  with biometrics a electronic dog lease.   But in 2002, DoD adapted it.  Now it is a standard for ID..

Re-usability and Modularization and mobile strategy part of technology has been accepted now without having to enforce through governance and law blah blah blah..

It is a cultural issue.   Human mind has learned behavior,  Not body said change is easy..
But if interoperability is needed at a Semantics/ meaning & data & format level..  Ontology is one way to go..

I am done with my elevator pitch!

Pavithra

--- On Sat, 1/29/11, Ron Wheeler <rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Ron Wheeler <rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [Making the Case] Elevator Pitch
To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Saturday, January 29, 2011, 1:37 PM

On 29/01/2011 12:39 PM, John F. Sowa wrote:
> On 1/29/2011 12:03 PM, Pavithra wrote:
>> "With Ontology say the same thing, mean the same thing, process the same
>> thing, everywhere"
>>
>> "Ontology enables semantic interoperability by presenting information
>> consistently across organizations and domains and machines"
> Both of those statements require a huge amount of qualification.
> As stated, they are false.
+1
> For many purposes, a highly underspecified definition is essential
> for interoperability.  Names, addresses, and telephone numbers,
> for example, do not require a detailed specification of the
> nature of human beings, geography, or communication systems.
>
> Different applications may require radically different amounts
> of detail and formats for totally different purposes.
>
> For example, consider medical records, educational records,
> employment records, financial records, purchasing records,
> and Facebook sites for the same person.  You definitely do
> *not* want the same kind of information specified in the
> same way in all of them.
>
You are also never going to get agreement between all of the software
vendors and industry standards groups about what describes a person.

Too much of the discussion here seems to presume that we are going back
to the 1950s and 1960s were companies each built their own business
systems from scratch.
In the modern world, companies assemble a custom information structure
using software packages that come from several vendors.
If - BIG "if" -  the world adopts ontology as the basis for future
generations of systems, then companies are going to have deal with many
ontologies that have some level of compatibility and some adapters that
allow concepts and information to flow from one to the other.
SAP will have a description of a person that is different from ORACLE's
HR view of the person which will be different from the payroll service's
view of the person or the LMS's view of the person or the insurance
company providing medical insurance or the government regulator that
monitors workplace safety and so on.

However, these will all have to cooperate and provide adapters or
interfaces that allow the company's IT organization to make the whole
thing work.
Developers will need tools to "configure" ontologies to reflect the
company's view of the universe and to verify that these changes do not
affect interoperability.

Is there a discussion about the metadata required to support the
management of such a lattice of ontologies?
This would seem to be a key thing to understand before trying to build a
useful repository and set of tools to use it.

Ron

> John
>

>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>


_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/   
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/ 
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011 
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/

_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/   
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011  
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/     (01)