Brad, (01)
You wrote, (02)
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:37:39 -0500 "Brad Cox, Ph.D."
<bcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> One of the things that's confusing me is I don't feel I understand
> what people mean by the term "N^2 problem". (03)
Don't read too much into what people call N-squared, also spelled
N^2 or N**2. In the CDSI contect, it means only that the number of
interfaces grows "way too many." It does not mean the upper limit of
N*(N-1) will ever be needed. (04)
For example, I work for the U.S. Army, which defines 18 domains,
with each having many subdomains. That could mean the need for 100 or
200 data models or ontologies. The number of interfaces would be way to
many. If only 1/4 of the iterfaces were needed, it would still be too
many. And this does not address external systems. (05)
This N-squared problem is at the core of CDSI. If one believes
we can interface all the unique data models and ontologies that will
emerge (and need to interface), they will see no purpose for this group.
The founding premise of this group is that current technology (including
domain-to-domain interfaces) cannot achieve semantic interoperability
across all domains. (06)
Jim Schoening (Writing from my home address)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|