+1
Doug
On Feb 20, 2007, at 9:31 AM, ajit kapoor wrote: (01)
> If we ( including Jim H and Jim S) believe that further practical
> maturity
> will come from applying these technologies to a real large scale
> project,
> then let us say so in this report. The theoretical maturity index
> of 4 on a
> 9 pt scale will be interpreted by most CIOs to just wait and see
> if IBM or
> MS comes up with a solution. They will not unless there is "MONEY"-
> as they
> say "show me the money". If DoD continues to fund technology
> research w/o
> ever leading to be a first user, then we will keep on debating this
> issue ad
> infinitum. Look at the history-where will the Internet be today?
>
> Just my opinion.
> regards
> ajit
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6"
> <James.Schoening@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "common upper ontology working group" <cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 12:20 PM
> Subject: [cuo-wg] Completed exchange with Jim Hnedler
>
>
>> CDSI WG,
>>
>> I completed about a dozen email exchanges with Jim Hendler.
>> Below is
>> his final response.
>>
>> The attached paper reflects some good points he made. It now lists
>> "Ontology Mapping and Linking" as a candidate technical solution and
>> recognizes its promise in solving enterprising-wide data
>> interoperability,
>> but still only rates it a 4 on the 9-level Technology Readiness Level
>> scale. (This rating is still open if anyone can give a good
>> example of it
>> being higher or lower.) He is not embracing or concuring with the
>> paper,
>> but his initial opposition seems to have been resolved by the
>> suggestions
>> (good ones) I made.
>>
>> In a day or two, I'll post this again to the SICoP list, and
>> if no
>> other technical comments, will remove the 'draft' and post it to
>> our web
>> site. I'll then call a teleconference to discuss how to get the
>> paper out
>> to the right people.
>>
>> Jim Schoening
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jim Hendler [mailto:hendler@xxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 5:03 PM
>> To: Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6
>> Subject: Re: Moving out with paper
>>
>> I agree with you that it is important they [DoD] understand, or at
>> least
>> explore, limitations, but to be honest, what I'd really like to
>> see is DoD
>> move some of this stuff into acquisition, that's where they
>> actually scale
>> maturing technologies in practice, not in the research world - the
>> amount
>> of money in Army research going into data interoperability right
>> now is
>> trivial (and they're cutting back), DARPA which controls most of
>> the IT
>> research money in the DoD is not terribly interested in pushing
>> the area,
>> Air Force has some investment, but not really enough to make things
>> happen. I think the community needs to tell the DoD that we are
>> ready to
>> play - I think if a company like SAIC, LM or Northrup-Grumman got
>> a big
>> contract to do database interoperability with a requirement that they
>> could not replace existing systems, but had to integrate in place, it
>> would push the field far more than the small research investment
>> ARL has
>> for this stuff. Heck, the subcontract partneri!
>> ng in such an acquisition would probably be more money than a
>> research
>> program in the area (and there'd be a "make it work" aspect) - but
>> I think
>> each of these things is equally unlikely in the near future - data
>> integration remains on everyones list of important problems, but
>> everyone
>> seems to be waiting for commercial industry to solve it - your
>> report will
>> be read by some CIOs as "keep waiting" - but hopefully some other
>> folks
>> will see there's a point here and move budgets - it's a long shot,
>> but
>> what the heck, that's what we do...
>> -JH
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
> (02)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (03)
|