Yes, Brad I read your paper and agree with its basic premise. I just wanted
to emphasize the point-sorry to be redundant but may be when we all speak in
harmony we may be able to make a positive influence. (01)
regards
ajit
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Cox" <bcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "common upper ontology working group" <cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] Technical maturity of Semantic Web solution (02)
>> Another element gaining popularity inside the SOA group is the race
>> between
>> vendors to sell their version of ESB-Here we go again jumping into the
>> quagmire of EAI which was to solve all integration problems. Why not DoD
>> take a responsible role in bringing all the vendors together and ask them
>> to
>> work together in developing a framework of solutions that can operate in
>> any
>> heterogeneous environment.
>
> See the enclosed "Paving the Bare Spots" white paper, which proposes much
> the
> same thing, and the http://giglite.org community, which is starting to
> come
> together with exactly the same goal.
>
> Of course, neither of these directly target the objectives of this group.
> We're focused (for now) with the lack of (what I'll call) cross-domain
> *syntactic* interoperability, without which *semantic* interopability is
> obviously impossible. I'm referring to the lack of agreement on how
> security
> should be handled across the DOD system of systems.
>
> --
> Brad Cox, Ph.D: Enterprise Architect, Binary Group
> Mail: bcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Phone: 703 361 4751
> Chat: brdjcx@AIM; Web: http://virtualschool.edu
>
>
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From: "ajit kapoor" <ajitorsarah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "common upper ontology working group"
> <cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 10:22:48 -0500
> Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] Technical maturity of Semantic Web solution
>
>> I agree, that while DoD and US government in general contribute immense
>> resources to information sharing technologies the "knowledge transfer" at
>> the pragmatic level has always been slow, and lately it has become
>> "viscous"
>> in its practical agility. We are merely experiencing the "Law of large
>> numbers" effect. We throw billions on (good concepts) and some of it
>> delivers results-all to often late and only benefits a few.
>>
>> The semantic technology is evolving and there are a lot of good
>> foundation
>> behind many of them. The fact that our imagination wants to address all
>> possible scenarios should be construed as a positive and motivate us to
>> start small and permeate into key environments. DoD has the resources to
>> establish such an environment. The problem I believe is a myth that has
>> been
>> spread that commercial entities are efficient and therefore lets use
>> COTS.
>> Having worked in many industries for 39 years - Xerox, Mead, Burroughs,
>> Dataquest/Gartner, META Group, general Motors, Allied Signal, (now
>> retired
>> from Lockheed), I can share with you the state is similar to that of the
>> Government. I used to joke in my earlier days when I was a consultant
>> that
>> we borrow your watch and tell you the time. The relationship between the
>> government and industry is very similar.
>>
>> The issue of SOA -Snake oil Arch" is again result of our own creation.
>> Why
>> is there a separate group looking into SOA/WS, Enterprise Architecture,
>> FEA
>> vs. TOGAF, and another one into GIG/Netcentric, another one to
>> E-Business,
>> and Home Land security has yet another set of similar projects going.
>> Information access should be the umbrella group driving all these
>> initiatives and work to consolidate some as there is a lot of redundancy.
>>
>> Another element gaining popularity inside the SOA group is the race
>> between
>> vendors to sell their version of ESB-Here we go again jumping into the
>> quagmire of EAI which was to solve all integration problems. Why not DoD
>> take a responsible role in bringing all the vendors together and ask them
>> to
>> work together in developing a framework of solutions that can operate in
>> any
>> heterogeneous environment. It has nothing to do with being a capitalist
>> society. Lets get competitive using the same "alphabet" -the value is in
>> orchestration of prose and poetry and scientific literature and discovery
>> not creating their unique alphabet.
>>
>> The problem is us. We can have us w/o any changes expect to solve the
>> problems as we are the one who keep on creating them-I think Einstein
>> said
>> something to that effect.
>>
>> Lets have a true open conference which is open to all not just the large
>> vendors who can afford to keep an active sales force in DC. Because if
>> only
>> these folks attend we will never get where our citizens want us to go.
>> Make
>> our Nation secure in this new era. No COTs cannot solve them.
>>
>> With regards,
>> respectfully.
>> ajit
>>
>> Sincerely
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "richard murphy" <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "common upper ontology working group" <cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 9:49 AM
>> Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] Technical maturity of Semantic Web solution
>>
>> > Hello Jim & Cory:
>> >
>> > I'll offer an alternate explanation to the challenges we currently
>> > face.
>> > I don't mean to discount the technical challenges, but I believe
>> > there are two additional challenges we also face:
>> >
>> > 1. A knowledge gap. Let's face it, there's been some great research
>> > done, most funded by DoD, and knowledge transfer seems to be lagging.
>> > The Markle Foundation has proposed an information sharing institute.
>> > Maybe something like a SantaFe Institute for federal information
>> > sharing
>> > would help accelerate knowledge transfer.
>> >
>> > 2. A private sector that needs to know where it can go. Right now the
>> > channels are clogged with SOA (Snake Oil Architecture) ;-) and XML.
>> >
>> > These technologies need to be displaced from the channels with
>> > alternatives. Maybe some kind of performance based contracting with
>> > incentives to promote the use of smart technologies. This approach
>> > would
>> > have to show up in some RFP's. That will enable the private sector to
>> > invest based on a known set of targets.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Best wishes,
>> >
>> > Rick
>> >
>> > email: rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > web: http://www.rickmurphy.org
>> > cell: 703-201-9129
>> >
>> > Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6 wrote:
>> >> Cory,
>> >>
>> >> This model starts with the sound concept (Level-1) and ends with the
>> >> technology being 'ready' for implementation. Some organizations fund
>> >> research, others pilot emerging technology, but most wait until a
>> >> technology is ready before rolling it out across their entire
>> >> enterprise.
>> >> It's true, the technology will further mature, just as a 17 year old
>> >> driver, who is ready to drive, will further mature, but that's not
>> >> point
>> >> of the model or the paper.
>> >>
>> >> One problem the paper hopes to address is that some large
>> >> organizations
>> >> (DoD for one) believe the Semantic Web approach is ready for
>> >> implementation and can achieve data interoperability (including at the
>> >> semantic level) across large numbers of domains, subdomains, and
>> >> Communities of Interest. Such domains are forming, but having minimal
>> >> luck creating data models and ontologies, and with virtually no
>> >> interoperablity amongst them. DoD recently realized this is not
>> >> working,
>> >> but they think they implemented it wrong. They need to understand
>> >> current technology (ready for implementation) can't achieve data
>> >> interoperability across large numbers of domains.
>> >>
>> >> It's a secondary issue as to what might work, if anything, but the
>> >> first
>> >> issue is whether organizations like DoD should continue trying to
>> >> implement technology that is not anywhere near being ready to
>> >> implement.
>> >> When DoD bought into the Internet, it had already taken off and proven
>> >> its value, scalability, and readiness for broad-scale implementation.
>> >> I
>> >> suggest the Semantic Web approach to data interoperability may be
>> >> working
>> >> on a small scale, but hasn't shown it can scale. Maybe this will
>> >> come,
>> >> but its not here now, and IMHO DoD should not assume they can
>> >> implement
>> >> it.
>> >>
>> >> Jim Schoeing
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Cory Casanave [mailto:cory-c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> >> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 1:01 AM
>> >> To: common upper ontology working group; Schoening, James R C-E LCMC
>> >> CIO/G6
>> >> Subject: RE: [cuo-wg] Technical maturity of Semantic Web solution
>> >>
>> >> I would also suggest that the first 'actual system" "flight proven" is
>> >> the beginning, not the end of a technology maturing. That is the
>> >> first
>> >> early adopter!
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> [mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pat Hayes
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 1:09 PM
>> >> To: Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6
>> >> Cc: cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] Technical maturity of Semantic Web solution
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>Pat (or anyone),
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Someone else will have to do this. I have no idea what these
>> >> distinctions
>> >> mean in this kind of a context. When did the WWWeb satisfy a 'proof of
>> >> concept' or a 'breadboard validation'? This seems to be about
>> >> engineering
>> >> some kind of device, not letting loose a social method of interaction.
>> >>
>> >> Pat
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> OK, if what you describe is a potential solution, at what level
>> >>>of technical maturity (using scale below, from the paper) would you
>> >>>rate this, and please consider scalability as part of this
>> >>>assessement?
>> >>>
>> >>>1. Basic principles observed and reported.
>> >>>2. Technology concept and/or application formulated.
>> >>>3. Analytical and experimental critical functions and/or
>> >>>characteristic proof of concept.
>> >>>4. Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment.
>> >>>5. Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment.
>> >>>6. System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant
>> >>>environment.
>> >>>7. System prototype demonstration in an operational environment.
>> >>>8. Actual system completed and 'flight qualified' through test and
>> >>>demonstration.
>> >>>9. Actual system 'flight proven' though successful mission
>> >>>operations.
>> >>>
>> >>>Jim Schoening
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>-----Original Message-----
>> >>>From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@xxxxxxx]
>> >>>Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 5:52 PM
>> >>>To: Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6
>> >>>Cc: cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >>>Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] The next key question
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>CDSI WG,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Given Pat Hayes' description (below) of what Jim Hendler refers to
>> >>>> as
>> >>>>"URI-based reference mechanism coupled with the standard for KR and
>> >>>>other aspects is aimed exactly at scalability.":
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The key question now is: Could the above referenced
>> >>>>technology (when it matures) be used to achieve semantic
>> >>>>interoperability across large numbers of domains (with independently
>> >>>>developed ontologies)?
>> >>>>Any takers?
>> >>>
>> >>>Sure. The direct answer to your question is, no.
>> >>>BUt that is because your question as posed misses the point: the open
>> >>>publication paradigm allows ontologies to NOT be developed
>> >>>independently of one another. They will cross-refer, use parts of
>> >>>other
>> >>>ontologies, and include references - eventually, one hopes, 'nuanced'
>> >>>references - to one another in a global network of semantic
>> >>>hyperlinks.
>> >>>And they will do this because to create a useful ontology by re-using
>> >>>and linking in this way will be vastly easier than building entire
>> >>>ontologies from scratch, in isolation from other ontology building.
>> >>>Think of the SWeb as a growing ontology 'library', freelyopen to all
>> >>>for modification and re-use. As pieces of this are written and found
>> >>>widely useful, the number of links to them (and the economic pressure
>> >>>on the community to find ways to preserve them) will grow, ensuring
>> >>>their even wider re-use. This effect snowballs on the Web, as we all
>> >>>know. As far as I can see, the pressures which make such phenomena as
>> >>>YouTube go from nothing to billions of users in less than a year will
>> >>>still operate, albeit perhaps at a different timescale, for the
>> >>>semantic web also. The semantic web is not just traditional ontology
>> >>>engineering with XML added as a kind of afterthought. It is part of
>> >>>the
>> >>>Web, and will be governed by Webbish laws of growth and distribution.
>> >>>
>> >>>Pat
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>Jim Schoening
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Pat Hayes wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> OK, here's my take on that.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> First, "standard for KR". I think all that Jim means is, the SWeb
>> >>>>>is intended to use whatever is the best available KR mechanism that
>> >>>>>can be adopted as a 'standard', ie which a wide enough spectrum of
>> >>>>>users can be persuaded to agree to use. No such choice will be free
>> >>>>>from controversy. OWL wasn't and isn't free from controversy, and
>> >>>>>nobody even knows if a large enough community can ever be brought
>> >>>>>to consensus on an acceptable Rule language. But assuming that some
>> >>>>>WG can get its job completed, and produces a useful notation, then
>> >>>>>that can be used on the SWeb. There are plenty of potential
>> >>>>>candidates
>> >>>
>> >>> >> which are way more expressive than OWL readily available. So it
>> >>>would
>> >>>
>> >>>>> be a mistake to identify the SWeb vision with OWL or DL technology
>> >>>>>in particular. OWL-DL is just the first in what one hopes will be
>> >>>>>an evolving series of KR standards which will provide the
>> >>>>>infrastructure of the SWeb. Perhaps the next one will be more like
>> >>>>>Python+Prolog on steroids. Or it may be a breakthrough in CL
>> >>>>>reasoners using the guarded fragment, who knows?
>> >>>>> The decision is as much political as technical, or even subject to
>> >>>>>whims of intellectual fashion.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "URI-based reference mechanism" is more interesting. This is one
>> >>>>>of the few things that really is new and different about the SWeb:
>> >>>>>it is part of the Web, and subject to Web conventions and
>> >>>>>protocols. It isn't *just* applied ontology engineering. So, every
>> >>>>>SWeb ontology is required to use names drawn from a (literally)
>> >>>>>global
>> >>>>>set of names.
>> >>>>> The scope of these names is the entire Web. There are no 'locally
>> >>>>>scoped' or 'private'
>> >>>>> names on the Sweb. So if your ontology uses a name for a concept,
>> >>>>>my ontology can use it too.
>> >>>>> Anyone can 'say' anything about everyone else's concepts, on the
>> >>>>> Sweb.
>> >>>>> This is a whole new game, which nobody has played before. A can
>> >>>>>introduce a concept called A:thingie1 and B can introduce
>> >>>>>B:thingie2, and C can then, entirely independently and without
>> >>>>>asking for A or B's permission, assert that (say) A:thingie1 is
>> >>>>>the same as B:thingie2. A
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > and B may disagree: tough tittie, they can't stop C from making
>> >>>>the
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> assertion. C can say things about A's ontology, in fact, such as
>> >>>>> assert that it is all BS. The globality of the namespace has a
>> >>>>>whole
>> >>>>> range of consequences which we are only beginning to explore. And
>> >>>>> being URIs (actually IRIs these
>> >>>>> days) , these names can also be used as identifiers which *access*
>> >>>>> things on the Web.
>> >>>>> Whether these accessed things should be the referents of the names
>> >>>>> is currently controversial (I think not, in general), but that
>> >>>>>they
>> >>>>> access
>> >>>>> *something* is not even remotely at issue. So SWeb concept names
>> >>>>> have a whole new dimensionality to them, which is (or at any rate
>> >>>>> can be) orthogonal to their use as referring names. In particular,
>> >>>>> it allows ontologies to "address" other ontologies (a pale version
>> >>>>> of which is the OWL:imports primitive, but one can do a lot more
>> >>>>> than this), which obviously has many potential applications
>> >>>>>relevant to scaling.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Hope this helps.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> BTW, I entirely agree with Jim's optimism. I think people are way
>> >>>>>too scared of inconsistencies. Lets wait and see what problems
>> >>>>>actually crop up before trying to solve or avoid ones that we only
>> >>>>>worry about rather than actually find.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Pat
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>___
>> >>>
>> >>>_________________________________________________________________
>> >>>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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> 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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _________________________________________________________________
>> >> 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
>> >>
>> >> _________________________________________________________________
>> >> 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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _________________________________________________________________
>> > 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
>> >
>> >
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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 -------
>
> (03)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (04)
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|