The point is designed systems and evolved systems arise from two ways of
solving similar problems. Evolved systems ("free markets" for example) often
solve the hardest ones better, as the soviet economy's shot at central
planning shows. (01)
It was also an evolved problem that has pretty much solved the N^2 problem of
cross-domain ontologies between diverse real languages, a problem I think we
do agree won't be solved by centrally planned technologies like OWL. No
shortage of cross-domain ontologies (dictionaries, etc) in bookstores; another
evolved system, with the incentive structures I mentioned. (02)
Rain forests are just one example of evolved systems. If that example doesn't
work for you just pick one that does. But don't rule evolved solutions out
just because they are seen as unconventional in these circles. (03)
--
Work: Brad Cox, Ph.D; Binary Group; Mail bcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Home: 703 361 4751; Chat brdjcx@aim; Web http://virtualschool.edu (04)
---------- Original Message -----------
From: "Cory Casanave" <cory-c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "common upper ontology working group"
<cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Flynn, John P." <john.flynn@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 14:17:48 -0500
Subject: RE: [cuo-wg] White Paper (05)
> Brad,
> In that I don't do much work for or about the rain forest, it is a bit
> hard to place your analogy. If fact, all of the work we do is for
> "intentional systems" rather than natural systems. Those intentional
> systems may be organizations, communities or information technology.
> There is certainly parts of those systems that can work based on an
> incentive system, but in almost every case it is the incentive for
> intentional systems to work together - and in doing so become a larger
> intentional system. It is not just the government that thinks they need
> to design, architect and specify how their organization, resources and
> supporting technologies work and work together - it is everyone and
> everything which has a goal.
> -Cory
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brad Cox, Ph.D. [mailto:bcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 5:36 PM
> To: Cory Casanave; common upper ontology working group
> Cc: Flynn, John P.
> Subject: RE: [cuo-wg] White Paper
>
> Cory; couldn't let this claim go by unchallenged.
>
> > The government, like any large organization, is a system and parts of
> > that system need to be designed.
>
> Its absolutely true that government believes this to its very soul. But
> its definitely not true for almost all other large organizations, like
> rain forests, the distributed organization that feeds lunch to millions
> of New Yorkers each day, nor the more localized ones that build
> everything from pencils to automobiles to telephone calls.
>
> Such organizations were never "designed". They "evolved", completely
> oblivious to the guiding hand of some almighty nerd. For more along
> these lines search for Bionomics on http://virtualschool.edu.
>
> This is actually the reason I keep yammering on about incentive
> structures.
> Evolutionary systems rely on such structures (based on calorie exchange
> in
> nature) to distinguish success and failure. Govt largely lacks this, and
> thus the guiding hand it provides.
>
> --
> Work: Brad Cox, Ph.D; Binary Group; Mail bcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Home: 703 361 4751; Chat brdjcx@aim; Web http://virtualschool.edu
>
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From: "Cory Casanave" <cory-c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "common upper ontology working group" <cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> <bcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Flynn, John P." <john.flynn@xxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 15:49:56 -0500
> Subject: RE: [cuo-wg] White Paper
>
> > John,
> > I don't think we are talking about the same thing. We are concerned
> > with the architectures of the government, not architectures the
> > government imposes on others. The government, like any large
> > organization, is a system and parts of that system need to be
> designed.
> > Some parts need to be designed to work with other parts, good
> > architecture does that flexibly and without N**2 integration. These
> > architectures need to work together - architectures working together
> > is exactly what interoperability is, separately architected systems
> > (business or technology systems) coming together on common ground.
> > "The internet" does not "work together" in this way, it is technology
> > infrastructure.
> >
> > As for as tried and proven approaches, building solid architectures is
>
> > as about as proven as it gets. Common agreement in a community is
> > proven (also known as standards). Point to point interoperability is
> > also proven. We want to go beyond that, here we have some great
> > candidates but I don't see anything as proven.
> >
> > As far as LDC and fuzzy architectures, I agree completely.
> >
> > -Cory
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Flynn
> > Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 9:46 AM
> > To: 'common upper ontology working group'; bcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: 'Flynn, John P.'
> > Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] White Paper
> >
> > Cory,
> >
> > A typical problem with government designed and managed architectures
> > is that they have the potential to represent a lowest common
> > denominator
> > (LCD) approach in order to accommodate the interest of all the
> > candidate participants. The resultant LCD architectures are so vague
> > that they still allow many non-interoperable applications to be
> > developed and almost always contain relatively easy to obtain
> > provisions for exceptions. It seems that the one architectural
> > standard that has best held up over a number of years, gracefully
> > evolved and truly supported broad interoperability is the World Wide
> > Web architecture. It was not designed or managed by the government.
> > Also, it is not proprietary. So, it may be useful to focus on ways to
> > extend the proven WWW model, via W3C processes, to accommodate the
> > CDSI requirements before branching out to seriously consider other
> > less tried and proven approaches.
> >
> > John
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > On Behalf Of Cory Casanave
> > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 11:21 AM
> > To: bcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'common upper ontology working group'
> > Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] White Paper
> >
> > Brad,
> > We have been thinking along similar lines but I submit the government
> > has to own their architectures, only they have the cross-cutting view
> > (or should have). Contractors can help build these, but the
> > architecture asset (as the expression of the enterprise, enterprise
> > needs and solutions - business or
> > technical) has to be put into the acquisition cycle. Systems then
> need
> > to
> > be built to that architecture is an executable, testable way. Those
> > architectures have to STOP being "for a system" and be "for the
> > enterprise".
> > SOA makes a great model for these architectures - separating concerns
> > and providing the boundaries to build to. The semantic technologies
> > can help here to join and bridge architectures, but you are absolutely
>
> > correct that the core problem is not technical.
> > -Cory
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/cuo-wg/
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
> > http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/cuo-wg/
> > To Post: mailto:cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/ Shared Files:
> > http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/cuo-wg/
> > Community Wiki:
> > http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/CommonUpperOntologyWG
> ------- End of Original Message -------
------- End of Original Message ------- (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/cuo-wg/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/cuo-wg/
To Post: mailto:cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/cuo-wg/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/CommonUpperOntologyWG (07)
|