I agree completely. (01)
At 10:10 PM 3/9/2006, Bill Andersen wrote:
>An open letter to the UOS organizers and all key participants.
>Please read the whole thing.
>On Mar 9, 2006, at 19:24 , Adam Pease wrote:
>> That's good to hear. My suggestion, with all respect to Mills,
>>would be to have Doug, Nicola and myself each present our views for
>>1/2 hour each from 9am to 10:30am. That's still quite limited, but
>>might give the group at least some of the groundwork needed to make
>>progress on an upper ontology summit.
>Let me amplify Adam's comments:
>For this proceeding to be taken seriously, there needs to be a clear
>focus, clear goals, and ample time given to discuss some very
>difficult topics. All three are lacking from the proposed agenda. I
>completely agree with Adam on his earlier points about lack of proper
>focus. Now, let me move on to another topic. Upon reading Adam's
>post I decided to look at the agenda myself:
>I discovered that Wednesday morning's agenda is a platform for
>commercial vendors of "ontology" tools to talk about and demonstrate
>their products and/or positions. This is a completely inappropriate
>activity to be mixed in with a scientific discussion of upper
>ontology and an attempt at reconciliation of UOs as engineering
>efforts. I had absolutely no idea such an activity was planned. Had
>I known I would have protested. Who is the audience for this? Why
>where these particular parties selected? Who selected them? Is the
>press invited? What statements have been prepared to give to the
>press regarding these commercial interests?
>We all deserve answers to these questions.
>I have given freely of my valuable time to help shape the wording and
>agenda for the summit. I work very hard to keep my life as an
>academic researcher in this area separate from my interest in my
>company. Now I find out that my efforts and name and reputation and
>even that of my company are being used in part to foster the
>commercial interests of those in competition with us? This is an
>absolutely unheard of outrage!!!!!
>I can't speak for Adam or for Doug Lenat, but If you're going to have
>demos, then why not include demos of Ontology Works IODE, Cyc, and
>Sigma the most mature products in existence that have REAL upper
>ontologies in them. Either open it up to anyone
>with an actual ULO- based product, or kill the
>commercial content altogether. I suggest
>killing the commercial content so we can stick to the science and
>Can any of you explain any of this???
>If not, then I will formally (and *very* publicly) withdraw my
>personal support and that of my company for the UOS effort.
>Moreover, I will in the strongest possible terms urge my commercial,
>academic, and government colleagues to do the same.
>Bill Andersen (andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
>Ontology Works, Inc. (www.ontologyworks.com)
>3600 O'Donnell Street, Suite 600
>Baltimore, MD 21224
>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
>To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit (03)
http://www.ontologyportal.org - Free ontologies and tools (04)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/uos-convene/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit (05)