W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2009

Re: Research Illusion

From: Semantics-ProjectParadigm <metadataportals@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 14:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <606623.75608.qm@web45504.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
To: Azamat <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>
Cc: 'SW-forum' <semantic-web@w3.org>, "\[ontolog-forum\]" <ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net>
Azamat,

Sorry for the confusion I caused using the phrase "common standard ontologies", what I meant to say was "common standard categories of ontologies'.

What I think is valid point you made was that everybody is defending his own turf and developed tools, and you recommend catalyzing some process of unification/standardization in order to get the intended process going.

Unfortunately it is about a bit more than just ontologies.

The open source software community does not adhere to standards as a whole, or at least not in a sense that we can safely assume that most open source code is written in forms which follow similar systems for development, quality control etc.

What we do need is some catalyzing agents of change, whether this be the creation of a set of standard categories of ontologies, some standards for open source development, some quality control guidelines for digital publications as I mentioned in earlier emails, or just some individual, or company/consortium or funding agency to get some of these things going.

I applaud anyone willing to finance and/or shoulder such an undertaking.

I have proposed some bold ideas as well and lacking the resources you seem to have access to, have had to resort to bouncing off ideas to dozens of organizations, funding entities, governmental agencies at national levels (US.. Holland, etc., East Asia), regional levels (UNEP, European Union), and international levels (UNEP and FAO).

The fact that every single one of them with the noticeable exception of the Club of Rome has shown interest in discussing the ideas (ALL of them entailing ICT empowerment on a global level), shows the willingness to explore new avenues and keeping all options open.

One thing I know, is going to be very hard, which is coming up with universal information and knowledge classifications for the entire body of collective human (scientific, technological and general) knowledge.

Several fields of science have classification codes (e.g. mathematics, physics and astronomy) and in library sciences we use a set of universal information classication codes.

The catch is going to be building the first categories, of which some already are out there, for the body of scientifc/technological knowledge, as I indicated in an earlier email, when at the same time we have to come up with basic structures for those fields of knowledge which lack "structure", in terms of information classification schemes.

Milton Ponson




--- On Mon, 5/11/09, Azamat <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy> wrote:

From: Azamat <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>
Subject: Re: Research Illusion
To: metadataportals@yahoo.com
Cc: "'SW-forum'" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net>
Date: Monday, May 11, 2009, 7:45 PM



 
 

MP wrote: "As an academically educated professional and experienced global 
activist in sustainable development and HUMAN RIGHTS, I defend freedom of speech 
...And those domains of collective stupidity, leave them for what they are, they 
are after all the collective expression of individuals who have the right to 
have opinions and be stupid, because the exercise of free will to express 
oneself is a human right most cherished and most guaranteed by almost everyone 
of the 105 plus human rights treaties recognized by the UN."
 
I highly respect your commitment to defending the freedom of speech, and 
the rights to be unintelligent, better in some accidental respects and 
chance actions. Personally, i've done many follies, as many others, i 
believe; for to err is human. That's why we try to create intelligent machines, 
to safeguard humanity from its stupidities: wars, crises, poverty, diseases, 
crimes, etc.  
 
MP: "I do remember a thread in which Azamat proposed a Federated Ontology 
System based on a monolithic super structure."
 
Thanks, Milton. But, actually, it is an open, dynamic but underlying 
structure of all particular meanings. Most fundamental research has been 
done, and our appeal to the SW and Ontolog communities for joint 
cooperation were an act of politeness; for we know that everybody is 
interested only in his mess of porridge. Also we know that majority of the 
listings are good developers, not interesting in high methodological debates, 
but looking for the high-quality ontology content for their applications. 
Here we can share some good news. Before soon, thanks to our brilliant 
knowledge engineer, two web sites with machine-translated content could be 
launched:
http://www.standardontology.org/ (a 
free standard ontology portal), now under construction;
 http://www.standardontology.com/ (a commercial subscription site for doing some 
meaningful search on the web), now under 
construction.
We much rely on the institutional and individual members of the 
communities as our first potential customers and users, who are well 
cognizant of the outstanding theoretical and practical utility of ontology and 
semantics for new knowledge production and building web knowledge 
applications.
 
Azamat Abdoullaev




  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: 
  metadataportals@yahoo.com 
  To: 'SW-forum' ; Azamat 
  
  Cc: Sören Auer ; Mustafa 
  Jarrar ; Pieter De Leenheer ; jeremy@topquadrant.com 
  Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 11:18 
  PM
  Subject: Re: Research Illusion
  

  
    
    
      
        
        As an academically educated professional and 
        experienced global activist in sustainable development and HUMAN RIGHTS, 
        I defend freedom of speech even if it borders on the verge of biting 
        cynicism and being offensive.

I do however object to the way my 
        words and those of others are interpreted.

I do remember a thread 
        in which Azamat proposed a Federated Ontology System based on a 
        monolithic super structure.

Every reply to Azamat's email has 
        made some valuable point.

We may all have our doubts on the 
        current state of the academia and the scientific publications and how 
        these in their digital formats can be integrated in the semantic web, or 
        linked data clouds.

I do not believe in a perfect world. but I do 
        believe in striving for the best possible world.

In such a world 
        human rights must prevail, which implies that freedom of choice, and 
        freedom of speech are almost absolute.

The academia, however 
        flawed it may be, has the moral obligation to lead and inspire in making 
        the world of knowledge available to each and every one of us.

We 
        have the right to question the academia and to criticize it.

I do 
        however NOT share Azamat's bleak outlook and find his last email to be 
        an unfair representation of the replies to his first email.

I 
        propose we consider the flaws and imperfections and concentrate on 
        coming up with viable solutions.

The obstacles Azamat pointed out 
        are mostly of a human nature and deal with human flaws, these are 
        however not the subject of these lists per se.

For implementing 
        quality control in a wide range of human endeavors the international 
        standards organization ISO has created quality control systems. 
        

>From the criticism voiced by Azamat I would conclude that it 
        would not be such a bad idea to come up with some generalized system for 
        defining quality control, at least for digital publications, which of 
        course would have to be on a voluntary basis.

This in combination 
        with compliance to technical standards enabling integration in linked 
        data clouds or semantic web would ensure the quality of material in the 
        linked data domains, at least when concerning scientific 
        publications.

Otherwise the internet may soon be swamped by open 
        access repositories and open access journals of lesser quality, which 
        would make the effort of adding these to linked data clouds or the 
        semantic web a waste of scarce resources.

As I said before in 
        earlier threads, a monolithic semantic web is not possible, their will 
        be domains more perfect than others, or speaking in terms of information 
        quality some better than others, instead of trying to make all of them 
        perfect, let's focus on making those for which quality is deemed 
        important as perfect as is humanly and technically possible.

And 
        those domains of collective stupidity, leave them for what they are, 
        they are after all the collective expression of individuals who have the 
        right to have opinions and be stupid, because the exercise of free will 
        to express oneself is a human right most cherished and most guaranteed 
        by almost everyone of the 105 plus human rights treaties recognized by 
        the UN.

Milton Ponson
GSM: +297 747 8280
Rainbow Warriors Core Foundation
PO 
        Box 1154, Oranjestad
Aruba, Dutch 
        Caribbean
www.rainbowwarriors.net
Project Paradigm: A structured approach 
        to bringing the tools for sustainable development to all stakeholders 
        worldwide
www.projectparadigm.info
NGO-Opensource: Creating ICT tools for 
        NGOs worldwide for Project Paradigm
www.ngo-opensource.org
MetaPortal: providing online access to 
        web sites and repositories of data and information for sustainable 
        development
www.metaportal.info
SemanticWebSoftware, part of 
        NGO-Opensource to enable SW technologies in the Metaportal 
        project
www.semanticwebsoftware.info


--- On Sat, 
        5/9/09, Azamat <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy> wrote:

        
From: 
          Azamat <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>
Subject: Re: Research 
          Illusion
To: "'SW-forum'" <semantic-web@w3.org>, 
          "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net>
Cc: 
          "Sören Auer" <auer@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>, "Mustafa Jarrar" 
          <mjarrar@cs.ucy.ac.cy>, "Pieter De Leenheer" 
          <pdeleenh@vub.ac..be>, jeremy@topquadrant.com
Date: Saturday, 
          May 9, 2009, 7:04 PM


          SA: "I have the vision that research communities' 
          crowd intelligence could be employed in the Web 2.0 style for deciding 
          about research funding".

MB: "...we see people can vote 
          resources....Allowing people to add ontology-based annotations is just 
          similar and would be another step forward."
JC: "Google scholar 
          provides citation counts, which while still a fairly rough measure, 
          does include an idea of the importance of any piece of 
          work."

PDeL: "I agree with the value of the wisdom of the crowd 
          effect in many cases, however it should be controlled somehow to 
          prevent the emergence of "foolishness of the crowd".

MP: "We 
          second the idea of common standard ontologies for the semantic web 
          use.."



These points are all the significant sides and 
          aspects of one problem, (Academic) Research Illusion: "deluding by 
          creating illusory ideas", "considered scientific (magical) by laymen 
          (naive observers)", " something what is false", "erroneous mental 
          representation".

I incline to think that the "crowd 
          intelligence" or "foolishness of the crowd" may explain the nature of 
          the "phenomenon", and a canonic world model encoded as a 
          machine-understandable common ontology standards of meanings may allow 
          to head off it at all.

To my knowledge, there are no semantic 
          applications on Intelligence and Collective Intelligence or Stupidity 
          and Crowd Stupidity, what must be a big miss. Some public ventilation 
          of these really critical issues could be of use, theoretical and 
          practical.

Interestingly, while googling "Intelligence" (the 
          power to perceive, learn, image, remember, understand, reason and 
          think, will, or communicate), one gets 130 m hits, while looking for 
          "Stupidity" (lack of intelligence, mentally limited, dumbness, 
          ignorance, an absence of ideas), just 12,2 m hits. There was an 
          economic historian Carlo Cipolla, who tried to formulate the 
          fundamental laws of stupidity. One of them: A person is stupid if he 
          causes damage to another person or group of people without 
          experiencing personal gain, or even worse causing damage to themselves 
          in the process. Accordingly, he distinguished four groups of 
          people:

1.. Intelligent people (bringing benefits to themselves 
          and others, generating news values and assets);
2.. Naive or 
          Helpless people (bringing benefits to others and losses to themselves, 
          enriching the few);
3.. Criminals or Bandits (just redistributing 
          the assets);
4.. Stupid people (causing losses to themselves and 
          society at large, destroying the assets).
Its is plain that of all 
          sorts of stupidity, the most dangerous is the one coming from learned 
          professionals, so there to put the academic research head gamers is an 
          open question.

Community-based knowledge forums as Wikipedia 
          are increasingly represented as collective intelligence (WikiMind 
          symbiotic intelligence) projects. Apropos, other legacy examples of 
          collective intelligence (or stupidity?) are political parties (for 
          nation-wide political stupidity or global political dullness are 
          sitting here).

The Group Intelligence (group mind, collective 
          intelligence, crowd wisdom) implies collectively solving complex 
          problems by means of networked ICT (as the Internet and Web) resulting 
          in enhancing individual minds and self-identity. Or, technically, it 
          is about a global virtual collaboration of individual minds guided by 
          standard ontological world models and semantic technologies as well as 
          by peering, sharing, objectivity and professional knowledge.

By 
          contrast, Group Stupidity suggests all sort of costly academic 
          research illusions at the cost of degrading individual minds and 
          losing self-identity, technically aggravated by numerous separate 
          ontologies and views and disjoint applications.

Azamat 
          Abdoullaev

http://www.eis.com.cy



PS: As a side 
          note, propose to establish ASA, Academic Stupidity Awards (with 
          categories in each knowledge domain, the stupidest idea, the stupidest 
          article, the stupidest research project, the stupidest academician; 
          for political correctness to use "unintelligent" instead of "stupid"). 
          And please don't mix it with Ig Noble prizes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ig_Noble, having some 
          sense. The existent World Stupidity Awards will then become just a 
          funny joke.


----- Original Message ----- From: "Sören Auer" 
          <auer@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
To: 
          "Jeremy Carroll" <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
Cc: "'Azamat'" <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>; "'[ontolog-forum] '" 
          <ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net>; 
          "'SW-forum'" <semantic-web@w3..org>; <mjarrar@cs.ucy.ac.cy>
Sent: Friday, May 08, 
          2009 11:04 PM
Subject: Re: Research Illusion


Jeremy 
          Carroll wrote:
> Google scholar provides citation counts, which 
          while still a
> fairly rough measure, does include an idea of 
          the importance
> of any piece of work.

I agree that 
          citation counts are a pretty good estimate of a works impact.

A 
          more severe problem from my point of view is the distribution 
          of
research funds.

Existing paradigms seem to be either 
          biased towards large established
organizations or well-connected, 
          long established individuals. For
innovative ideas and younger 
          researchers it is much harder.

I have the vision that research 
          communities' crowd intelligence could be
employed in the Web 2.0 
          style for deciding about research funding 
          [1].

--Sören

[1] http://wiki.cofundos.org/
Received on Monday, 11 May 2009 21:18:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:29 GMT