>Rick,
>
> Thank you for questioning the maturity
>model in the paper. I did some review and there
>is a different version that is probably better.
>It's the 'Technology Readiness Level' described
>by Wikipedia at
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_Readiness_Level.
>
> The 'Software' Readiness Level that I had
>used is a derivation of the above, but is no
>better a model for our purposes than the
>original. Thanks.
>
> It has been said, "All models are wrong,
>some are useful." This paper uses this model to
>better define what technologies are
>mature/ready/current vs. those not ready for
>implementation. The point of the paper is that
>current technologies cannot achieve semantic
>interoperability across many domains, (01)
Across many domains in what sense? That is, does
'domain' here indicate subjectmatter (time,
geography, legal reasoning, etc.) or the use of
an underlying formalism (OWL vs CL vs UML, etc.)?
The IKRIS project, admittedly a first effort and
rather shaky, did demonstrate at least the
possibility of interoperation in the latter sense
reasonably convincingly, I think, but there is a
long way to go. (02)
Pat (03)
> while emerging technologies may work, but are
>not ready for implementation, and therefore must
>be further explored, demonstrated, and
>developed.
>
>Jim Schoening
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
>Of richard murphy
>Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 7:25 PM
>To: common upper ontology working group
>Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] Technical maturity of Semantic Web solution
>
>Jim, Pat & All:
>
>I'd like to suggest the approach Pat has
>described is working and its working everywhere,
>In fact, you'll find some very interesting work
>on this site: http://rhizomik.net/livingsw/ in
>which the research shows the semantic web
>behaves like a living system.
>
>I've also suggested an alternative approach here:
>
>http://colab.cim3.net/forum//cuo-wg/2007-02/msg00012.html
>
>to assessing maturity which I believe is
>consistent with what you, Pat, are saying about
>"letting loose a method of social interaction."
>
>Pat, any thoughts ?
>
>However, Jim, to assess maturity using this
>approach we'd have to better understand how
>you're technical maturity scale relates maturity
>and scaleability.
>
>I believe posing and examining alternatives to
>your maturity scale is important and deserves
>debate. Thomas Kuhn, in the Structure of
>Scientific Revolutions says that scientists will
>hold onto a failing theory until an alternative
>is posed and compared.
>
>I'm not sure why you'd want to perpetuate a *not
>so good* maturity model, but maybe that says
>something about the audience for the paper.
>
>--
>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 (04)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|