Re: [ontology-summit] [strategy] Blank Stares and Semantic Technology: A

[Michael F Uschold <uschold@xxxxxxxxx>]

John Sowa said:

Right.  But no ontology today will help anybody "build and maintain an application quickly."

--

English is a bit too ambiguos for me to know just what you mean here :-) .  I disagree with the most obvious literal interpretation that came to mind.  

Using an ontology as part of a software development strategy and architecture DEFINITELY CAN make it easier, faster and cheaper to build and maintain systems. Agility and flexibility are the most often quoted benefits from real people using semantic technology for real financial gain. Agile and flexible means you can build things more quickly.  Agility and flexibily is in part increased because the systems have reduced complexity and are easier to maintain.  

Michael 

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:10 PM, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Bart,

The main point I was trying to make is that you can't measure
the result of an ontology by itself.

For example, you could take an old mainframe application that
drives a "green screen", write a new front end, and get a web
application.  But you can't use an ontology to upgrade any kind
of running application.  You have to start from scratch without
any guarantee that the result will do anything useful.

> It's not about promoting specific ontologies, or even ontologies
> in general. It's about promoting the tools to use with ontologies
> first, and for this audience specifically promoting Cyc or SUMO
> is what creates the blank stares in the first place.

Historical interlude:  Back in the 1990s, Cyc was supported by
some large corporations and gov't agencies.  They all employed
people who had PhDs in comp. sci., even with specialties in AI.
There were no blank stares, because they had already bought
Doug Lenat's sales pitch.

Every one of those groups had a complete set of Cyc software and
the full ontology.  I talked with some of the people at those
companies and agencies.  But none of their employees were able
to develop a single deployed application.  One of them said
"Everybody who spent any significant time working with Cyc
was let go, and I don't believe that's a coincidence."

I admit that Cyc has improved quite a bit during the past decade.
But one of the people at a location where Cyc is used said that
there is a "huge disconnect" between the skills required to work
with Cyc and the skills required for any other software.

> Ease of development is what the Ruby on Rails framework provides.
> It's very popular only because it allows developers to build and
> maintain an application quickly.

Right.  But no ontology today will help anybody "build and maintain
an application quickly."

> If we talk to the developers who know their own systems inside-and-out,

> and allow them to incorporate ontologies via tools...

What tools?  Where is the ontology equivalent of "Ruby on Rails"?

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/

--
Michael Uschold, PhD
   Senior Ontology Consultant, Semantic Arts

   LinkedIn: http://tr.im/limfu
   Skype, Twitter: UscholdM

_________________________________________________________________
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)