W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-comments@w3.org > September 2009

Re: OWL 2

From: Mark Montgomery <markm@kyield.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:15:18 -0600
Message-ID: <2C9CEA8425A04FB5B5F89D37E2AC97A1@OwnerPC>
To: "Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: <public-owl-comments@w3.org>
I understand Ian -- you have your hands full.

We are working on a new paper that will provide examples of about a dozen 
pragmatic uses of the technology at the intersection of  the semantic 
Internet (we include communications / mobile) and the enterprise, pieces of 
which have been well received by very large org CIOs -- may help in funding, 
although by necessity we must restrict some information.

This paper has been very popular with large organizations in particular - 
Unleash the innovation within (very little sales promotion)

http://www.kyield.com/images/Unleash_the_Innovation_Within_-_A_Kyield_White_Paper.pdf

And more recently this brief on understanding the semantic enterprise has 
taken the lead: (no sales promotion)

http://www.kyield.com/images/Understanding_the_Semantic_Enterprise_-_Kyield_White_Paper.pdf

Of course one challenge with adoption of open systems is that one doesn't 
necessarily have an incentive to promote use cases that will then be used by 
entrenched vendors -- in fact we often experience a disincentive -- many 
orgs are just gathering intel for internal projects for example -- expanding 
empires rather than spreading economic diversity -- we are seeking go to 
market partners for these and other reasons.

These are just a few of the structural issues we have come across FYI that 
actually may be useful from a standards design perspective, but overall the 
interest in the semantic enterprise has been very surprising during the past 
year (finally -- third admin I have promoted advanced knowledge systems in 
the U.S. Gov for example, and we still have made very little progress on a 
system-wide basis).

We've had quite a bit of success in communicating the potential for crisis 
prevention, meritocracy, and reduction of information overload -- well over 
ten thousand large orgs now, in some cases hundreds of employees in each. 
One would think by now that achieving the state of a learning 
organization -- particularly in the U.S. Government given a series of 
systemic failures, would be unavoidably obvious, although entrenched 
interests fight on as if nothing has occurred.....

Thanks again for the work.

Kind regards,

Mark Montgomery
Founder- Kyield
http://www.kyield.com
markm@kyield.com



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: "Mark Montgomery" <markm@kyield.com>
Cc: <public-owl-comments@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:11 AM
Subject: Re: OWL 2


> Dear Mark,
>
> Thank you for your comment
>      <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/ 
> 2009Sep/0038.html>
> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
>
> Unfortunately we don't have the resources within the Working Group to 
> produce the kind of material you describe. Hopefully this gap will be 
> filled by third parties such as Kyield.
>
> Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl- 
> comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should suffice). In your 
> acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied  with 
> the working group's response to your comment.
>
> Regards,
> Ian Horrocks
> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
>
>
>
> On 24 Sep 2009, at 15:19, Mark Montgomery wrote:
>
>> Just wanted to drop in, say hello, and thanks for continuing to  push OWL 
>> forward. Have just reviewed the wiki and reflecting back  more than a 
>> dozen years to when many of us were struggling with  basic tags in order 
>> to imbed some intelligence into the web, often  frustrated spending far 
>> more time on compatibility issues, which  was taking value from me 
>> personally while preventing the delivery  of higher value to others.
>>
>> The only comment I would make is on communications. The wiki format  is a 
>> good one, but still not they type of communications format  found or 
>> understood in the fickle executive suite. Back when I was  fully engaged 
>> in venture capital while moving Kyield forward, the  two worlds and 
>> cultures (CS and finance) so radically different  that I actually divided 
>> the days, finding that if I attempted to  work on both the same day, both 
>> would suffer.
>>
>> While I suppose one could argue that it's the job of vendors and  end 
>> users to communicate internally and externally, I'm still not  wondering 
>> if a white paper format restricted to standards wouldn't  be helpful in 
>> explaining to business morons why this work is so  relevant. We've 
>> attempted to tone down the sales effort in our  small contribution to 
>> that effort and have been very pleasantly  surprised (shocked is a better 
>> word), particularly with the Unleash  the innovation within piece.
>>
>> Beyond that I will attempt to digest the possibilities for adoption  from 
>> my perch.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>>
>> Mark Montgomery
>> Founder
>> Kyield
>>
> 
Received on Wednesday, 30 September 2009 18:15:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 September 2009 18:15:54 GMT