W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > June 2007

Re: Evidence

From: Mark Montgomery <markm@kyield.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 06:22:26 -0700
Message-ID: <002f01c7b274$e15e69c0$a100a8c0@Inspiron>
To: <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>

The discussion on evidence has brought up many thoughts collected through 
difficult trials over the past 15 years related to global adoption of a 
digitized social medium. While tremendous gains have been made, particularly 
by making available important information that would not otherwise be 
available in those locations if at all, we've also experienced substantial 
damage as a culture and society due to the devaluation of individualism, the 
lemming syndrome, loss of privacy, and in some ways economic justice 
historically preserved (attempted at least) through enaliable rights like 
property, ownership of thoughts, etc.

One thing I have noticed over time is that the evolution of the Internet is 
not terribly different than the physical world as most of the same issues 
inevitably arise, albeit quicker and too often determined by folks who 
haven't necessarily thought the broad implications through, or worse yet 
have turf of their own to protect.

So when we contemplate machine to machine automation, particularly standards 
that would be embraced and enforced by elite institutions that are often 
internally conflicted, we have a deep responsibility to rise above our own 
limitations and conflicts- to include disciplines and group think, to 
contemplate those issues rarely promoted by digerati or even the wisdom of 
crowds. For the most part I see that "evidenced" here, so 
congratulations -although I do notice the ego of the programmer raising its 
ugly head on occasion.

It seems to me that the topic of evidence effectively encapsulates the need 
for standards bodies, and serves as an excellent example/ opportunity for 
intelligent people to overcome particularly difficult issues- one person's 
evidence is another's blasphemy etc. etc., while still optimizing AI and 
efficiency  I find myself most often on the side of prevention, no doubt due 
to increasing age, and favor the philosophy of "first do no harm".

On a related note, I am wondering if we need to consider a function of 
"claim" as an offspring or sibling of evidence?

Mark Montgomery
CEO, Kyield
Managing Partner
Initium Venture Capital
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 13:22:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:20:27 UTC