- From: Paul Prueitt <psp@virtualTaos.net>
- Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 12:39:48 -0600
- To: "Paul S Prueitt" <psp@virtualTaos.net>, "Danny Ayers" <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Peter Stephenson" <prstephenson@earthlink.net>, "Ken Ewell" <mitioke@readware.com>, "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>, "Azamat" <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>, <semantic-web@w3.org>, "adasal" <adam.saltiel@gmail.com>, "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Danny, You spin well. No it was not primarily a bid for funding, but writing funding proposals is in general how one develops an explanation of what one proposes. Have you written funding proposals? In each case, the CEOs of the companies listed agreed that they were supportive of the Roadmap. Is there a purpose for publicly questioning this support? You may contact each CEO, and if any one of them suggests that they were not 100% informed and behind the proposal (which was made to US Customs) you might be justified in creating this type of doubt. Otherwise do you feel a need to apologize? The issue is the control of funding by the AI mentality. This needs light shone on it. Your objection and tone is precisely the type of inhibition that comes from a community that is highly IT centric and is not willing to consider the knowledge representation issues and solutions that are proposed by the Roadmap - and other similar proposals. I am not sure you are aware of the double standard that you have set up. Your can in an unprincipled way cast what ever doubt you can through suggestions that the Roadmap is not honest; and yet if I point out that John Sowa and many others have principled critic of the W3C standard... then I am being a bad person? I do not see where the notion of respect and fairness sets in this double standard. Your skeptics is a behavior, that is all. It does not matter, to you, if the other CEOs were involved in the Roadmap. It does not matter that there is positive innovation expressed in the RoadMap. The purpose of the behavior, is to create the very polemic that you suggest I should not have mentioned. You get mileage in what ever way you can, except in principled discussion of architecture. This is why Penrose titled his 1989 book " The Emperor's New Mind"... in reference to the AI polemic in general. This "thing" is interesting and has value, but it is not "intelligence". If you are able to understand any of the principles related to the Roadmap and to have a principled discussion about these principles, then I and others are willing to have a discussion about these principles. I think this is funny - but would rather talk about substance. -----Original Message----- From: Danny Ayers [mailto:danny.ayers@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 11:08 AM To: Paul S Prueitt Cc: Harry Halpin; adasal; semantic-web@w3.org; Azamat Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] Re: Semantic Layers (Was Interpretation of RDF reification) On 4/6/06, Paul S Prueitt <psp@virtualtaos.net> wrote: > The BCNGroup Roadmap was developed in late 2004 and early 2005 for US > Customs. The Roadmap was considered to be beyond the horizon of government > IT contractors. However, this Roadmap part of a series of proposals and > discussions about the need to center ontology definition within the control > of user community. I assume the Roadmap is the document at [1], which as far as I can tell is primarily a bid for funding ($765,312.50). On a cursory skim, my first impression of many of the claims is skepticism, although I did find the doc very confusing so maybe I'm missing the vision. > In Summary: In spite of recognized value for W3C standards, there are both > a type of false claim based marketing of what we call the first school and a > powerful inhibition of what we call the second school. I must confess I find this kind of polemic unpromising. I think any accusation of false claim marketing is troublesome, so personally wouldn't wish to suggest anything of the sort. But my skepticism would be greatly reduced if you could confirm that the project has the full backing of the individuals and companies listed in the Roadmap document: SchemaLogic Inc Acappella Software Recommind Inc Applied Technical Systems Inc Intellisophic Inc Text Analysis International Corporation Inc MITi Inc The Center for Digital Forensic Studies OntologyStream Inc Intellidimension Inc Dr Kent Myers (Advisory Board) Dr Ben Geortzel (Advisory Board) Dr Peter Stephenson (Advisory Board) Brianna Anderson (Advisory Board) Dr Peter Kugler (Advisory Board) Dr Alex Citkin (Advisory Board) Dr Art Murray (Advisory Board) Dr Paul Prueitt (Advisory Board) Dr Karl Pribram (Advisory Board) Dr John Sowa (Advisory Board) Rex Brooks (Advisory Board) Doug Weidner (Advisory Board) David Bromberg (Advisory Board) Cheers, Danny. [1] http://www.bcngroup.org/area1/2005beads/GIF/RoadMap.htm -- http://dannyayers.com
Received on Thursday, 6 April 2006 18:38:24 UTC