>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.
>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. (01)
Hey, hold on. The point of OWL is to provide a
standard for ontology information exchange, not a
centrally planned ontological technology. There
is no standard, centrally planned OWL reasoner or
OWL tool kit: indeed, they should evolve in just
the way you describe. But without having a common
language to communicate in, the evolutionary
process can't even get started. Just as you can't
have much of a free market if there is no
standard currency. (02)
> No
>shortage of cross-domain ontologies (dictionaries, etc) in bookstores (03)
A very misleading characterization, IMO. In what
sense is a dictionary 'cross-domain'? In what
sense is it an ontology? And dictionaries didn't
evolve (or Dr. Johnson wouldn't have had anything
to do) (04)
>; another
>evolved system, with the incentive structures I mentioned.
>
>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.
>
>--
>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: <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
>
>> 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 -------
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>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 (05)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (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)
|