Thanks for the encouraging note, Richard. I'd backed off, convinced I'd wasn't
being heard. But buoyed by your note, I'll take one more shot at explaining
what I've been trying to get across. (01)
One of the things that's confusing me is I don't feel I understand what people
mean by the term "N^2 problem". I'm guessing that's shorthand for costs
increaases as limitOf(N*(N-1)) as N -> infinity = N^2. Fair enough; its
shorter. (02)
But that applies if all N machines are to be connected to all N-1 others.
Actually cost increases as the number of *interfaces*. N^2 is just an upper
bound on that. But why concentrate on the upper bound when interfaces could be
counted as easily, without the concern over whether upper bounds are
realistic? For example, for N machines in a linear pipeline, the number of
interfaces is N-1, hardly N^2 or even N*(N-1). (03)
So rephrasing the problem as one of semantic interoperability between M
interfaces where M is larger than we might like but still far less than
N*(N-1). I been trying to point out that there are two ways of approaching
that problem. I've called them the designed approach and the evolved approach. (04)
In the designed approach, a (small) community of experts uses high technology
ontology tools to build a generalized solution (upper ontology) that can
generate the mappings needed to make any given interface interoperable. The
approach doesn't much depend on what standard (language) is used. I used OWL
as my example because that's what I'm most familiar with. Structured English,
structured french, or plain ol' Java/Cobol/Haskel would do about as well,
albeit with varying readibility. What's important here is that the approach is
centrally planned, largely confined to an expert community, although hopefully
with at least some support by domain experts with conflicting demands on their
time. (05)
The evolved approach is entirely different and more bottom-up. M interfaces
imply there are M groups of individuals that care about making each specific
interface (call it M(i)) interoperate. Those M groups are empowered
(governance?) to address the problem in much the same way we solve
inteoperability with natural languages; by using dictionaries and related
tools, using interpreters, etc. Dictionaries and interpreters are evolved
systems. Externally these are commercial products that compete with each other
in a competive system (free markets). But I could well imagine that domain
experts within govt might produce translation dictionaries that might compete
in a similar way, if govt could find a way to incentive them to focus on the
problem over other pressing uses of their time. (06)
Point is, I could well see how the second (evolved) approach could "solve"
the interoperability problem" as I've stated it. I've much less confidence
(approaching zero) that the designed approach (as I defined it) ever could.
This is partially because AI technology just isn't very smart, and partially
because you still need domain experts and don't have a way to incentive them
to contribute, since you've counted too heavily on high technology as the sole
solution. (07)
But mainly because people just don't solve ontology differences that way in
the real (non-IT) world. They just buy a dictionary, or hire a translator.
Problem solved. (08)
--
Work: Brad Cox, Ph.D; Binary Group; Mail bcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Home: 703 361 4751; Chat brdjcx@aim; Web http://virtualschool.edu (09)
---------- Original Message -----------
From: richard murphy <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 13:03:24 -0500
Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] White Paper (010)
> Hi Pat, Brad & All:
>
> I missed the beginning of this conversation, but couldn't resist an
> opportunity to jump into the mix. There's some common ground here
> between Pat and Brad, but the conclusions we draw from the postings
> below are significant.
>
> Pat: I don't interpret your posting to mean we should all use OWL.
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're just saying
> standardization within a specific language provides for convention, so
> we can parse, validate and reason.
>
> Would you agree Brad's evolved system implies more than one language and
> interpretation across languages?
>
> Brad: Your point regarding evolved sytems is an important one that
> should be fully explored in the context of CUO-WG. I'd suggest the
> language of complex adaptive systems provides for rich conversation in
> the context of CUO: evolution, adaptation, surviveable, fitness,
> generative, are all great discussion points typically missing here ...
>
> Scanning your prior postings, I'm more inclined to believe there's
> progress at hand regarding automation and the human element in system
> evolution is not one of intervention, but overcoming a knowledge barrier
> in the philosophy and logic from which our systems are designed.
>
> PH> 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.
>
> BC >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)
>
> --
> Best wishes,
>
> Rick
>
> email: rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> web: http://www.rickmurphy.org
> cell: 703-201-9129
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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 ------- (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (012)
|