Sending again via another account... (01)
Both of those models seem mature from an IT perspective (decades), but neither
is very mature from that of truly mature manufacturing domains like gunmaking
(centuries) or plumbing (millinea). (02)
The most mature state we know of (today) is characterized by industry-wide
consensus standards, automated production tools, and robust inspection gauges,
which appear in neither of these models. Both culminate in the cut to fit
crafsmanship ("does it work, not does it comply with the specification) that
dominated musket making before the industrial revolution. Muskets worked well
enough before then, but interchangeable parts made it possible to redefine
"good enouogh" to an entirely new levels of performance, cost, repairability,
etc. (03)
I know, it is unfair to apply such a stringent maturity model to CDSI (or even
IT) in their infancy. But entirely relevant in the context of a discusssion of
what the advanced stages of a maturity model should be. (04)
--
Brad Cox, Ph.D: Enterprise Architect, Binary Group
Mail: bcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Phone: 703 361 4751
Chat: brdjcx@AIM; Web: http://virtualschool.edu (05)
---------- Original Message -----------
From: "Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6" <James.Schoening@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'common upper ontology
working group'" <cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:57:11 -0500
Subject: [cuo-wg] Technical maturity models (06)
> 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,
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
------- End of Original Message ------- (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|