Re: BCNGroup Roadmap for Semantic Technology Adoption

Paul,

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.


This is an interesting observation. My thought is that it is a community
that is code (programming) centric, and this appears to be results centric.
I had thought that these things may go in cycles, possibly fashion, possibly
economic influence. I will not attempt to expand these points fully (even if
I were able to) but there is a cycle in the amount of work available to
programmers that is not coincident with the number of programmers available
with a particular skill set. For instance when the Internet bubble burst
there was a rise in small projects conceived by groups of programmers
looking for business funding, simply because they had skills but not work.
Programmers, being specialists, have the will to program and this seems to
be a powerful and prevelant force in the industry at the moment.
It seems there has been a drift away from design methodologies, I know I
have made a conscious decision in this direction, but think about the use of
POJOs, test driven development and so forth in Java.
Moreover, in the end, it is the code that counts, that is what brings the
money in for a company, so programmers are trained to think of being
productive as the production of code artifacts. That there isn't a clear
separation between architects, designers and builders is probably a mark of
the immaturity of the software industryas well, I don't know.
So, if I am right, and I have no idea if I am, then currently there is a
code bias that the no UFOs and the production of lots of little ontologies
left to fight it out amongst themselves fits well in to.
As to your other comments, I have no idea, but I am not sure how well put
your position is. With respect, wouldn't it suffice just to say that Danny
didn't seem to be following your point of view?
You seem to be saying that the w3c has an institutional bias. I don't know
if they do. But such a phenomena is not unheard of! Groups can get stuck in
following a received wisdom, examples from families, groups, institutions,
companies and countries abound.
What to do?
Well one thing I would advise is identify this very clearly and repeat a
well founded and described claim as succinctly as possible. Don't (dare I
say this?) sulk, just get to the point. I am not sure you have in what you
said.
Alternatively get on with expounding the alternatives.
I, for one, am listening.
Best,
Adam


On 06/04/06, Paul Prueitt <psp@virtualtaos.net> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>