- From: <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:36:09 +0100
- To: "John Graybeal" <graybeal@mbari.org>
- Cc: "Semantic Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Hi John > > Have you found this in any engineering discipline? It seems unusual to me. > If you want that kind of thing in the U.S., you pay very dearly for it. If you need training for a private, corporate aim, then I agree you should pay for it. But if you want to learn stuff to satisfy a legitimate personal desire for knowledge, I consider it a 'human right' On the one hand, the purpose of research is advancing knowledge, to better the human condition. This purpose is generally intended for the public good, in my understanding On the other hand, we use most of public funding to finanance private enterprises, and to generate protected intellectual property, save for a couple of papers here and there and notional dissemination efforts this to me seems a contradiction that lies at the heart of a profound dichotomy of purpose that can slow down progress proportionally to the amounts invested - the more money we put into discovery, the less knowledge is publicly accessible The discussion concerning public money funding private enterprises is too serious, and too long, and not for this list. However, as scientists and researchers, teachers, many of us feel the need to provide as much access as possible to knowledge and learning opportunities. What I see is that we create knowledge, and then we create the need to 'sell' this knowledge using expensive training, thus furthering the barriers and knowledge gaps in this world -of course to the economic and financial speculators this comes under ' creating business opportunities' when it comes to knowledge and progress of humanity as a whole, to deliberatelly put the instruments of knowing and earning in the hands of some and not others, is perverse but that's another argument > > On the U.S. side, our Marine Metadata Interoperability project is attempting > to do good outreach for its semantic initiative and repository (see [1] for > example). So we've been holding training workshops and the like, to the > extent funding allows. And we try to be very responsive to requests for > additional training. > > But this project (MMI and its semantic work) is not targeted at the semantic > world, rather it is targeted at environmental scientists/data managers who > may find some of these specific tools of use. (MMI was funded by the US > National Science Foundation's Ocean Sciences division.) We have to provide > training in order to obtain any entrainment at all. that's fantastic, however, it's still pushing the knowledge into the institutional bottleneck unless someone is working for an institution where you are doing outreach, they wont be able to learn from you, today, thanks to connected environments, we can do better than that tnowasays, these barriers are unnecessary. a bit of open house policy where possiblle, creating peer learning opportunities interspersed with other obligations and committments, can only be beneficial I think. the problem may be that people at the top our knowlege pyramid can maintain their position as long as the bottlenecks are in place > > So I wonder, is it possible the amount of outreach is influenced by the > primary goal of the tool developers -- developing new tools, as opposed to > serving a particular group of end users? Just a thought. yes, possible - but that should be part of the feedback loop, unless the end users goals are kept well knit into the design of the tools, we end up with lots of lovely and pompous hot air baloons, fired into the air with public resources I hope that people who benefit from grants and funding of various kinds to acquire the knowledge advantage that 'puts them where they are' feel compelled to some extent to pass something on where theere is a need/request for it > > Another possibility is that research funding is still rather limited on > semantic solutions, and making everything work well is hard, so the > resources all go into development rather than outreach. > sure, that's also true- however we can benefit from the multiplication of resources when we open up our models : by allowing students and tutors to share their knowledge, skills and resourcs a bit with others, we will soon end up with more resources, following the 'peer production' principle PDM > > [1] http://marinemetadata.org/semanticframework > > On Dec 28, 2008, at 2:55 AM, paola.dimaio@gmail.com wrote: > >> Greetings >> >> I am starting to be introduced to great sw tools being released by the >> various EU funded projects, for which lots and lots >> of public money is been used >> >> such as >> >> http://ontoware.org/ >> as well as lots of others >> >> Although all of these materials have some tutorials and documentation, the >> need for >> face to face training is mounting, and likely to increase >> >> I have not yet found during any of my trips distributed, connected, open >> training centers >> possibly c/o universities, whre people could drop in and get some guidance >> on how to get their hands dirty >> and have the chance to spend some contact hours with students and tutors >> who may want to share their expertise >> and help newcomers to become experts >> >> >> If this is at all possible, dear Santa, it's on my wishlist, and in my >> prayers for 2009 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Paola Di Maio >> ************************************************* >> > > > John > > -------------- > John Graybeal <mailto:graybeal@mbari.org> -- 831-775-1956 > Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute > Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org > > -- Paola Di Maio ************************************************* Networked Enabled Capabilities Research **************************************************
Received on Tuesday, 30 December 2008 08:36:50 UTC