I agree with you in general (sorry, can't regularly participate in this
discussion), but disagree strongly that expert systems are useful, at
least as classically defined using production rules (condition/action
or condition/action/event rules), the RETE algorithm, and tools such as
ART, KEE, OPS5, etc. Expert systems in general simulated logical
inference, trying to pull out declarative rules (mostly) from
procedural programming representation (a worthy partial solution, given
the times), but suffered (and still suffer, I think) from sometimes
fatal near-nondeterminism, a need to hack the agenda mechanism to get
things to work, being a maintenance and debugging nightmare, and the
smashing together of all knowledge levels, from knowledge at the
domain, strategic, to the bit-level. (01)
I think that much of ontology engineering developed as a strong
reaction against expert systems. I am strongly for ontology
engineering, just as strongly against expert systems, which I consider
a pre-logical and pre-ontology logic-like mechanism. (02)
Thanks,
Leo
_____________________________________________
Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation, Information Semantics
lobrst@xxxxxxxxx Center for Innovative Computing & Informatics
Voice: 703-983-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S H305
Fax: 703-983-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA (03)
-----Original Message-----
From: cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Flynn
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 2:01 PM
To: 'common upper ontology working group'
Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] Completed exchange with Jim Hendler (04)
+3 (05)
I'm convinced that Semantic Web technology offers very good promise
(the
best of any technical approach around today) for a pragmatic solution
to
cross-domain interoperability. However, Semantic Web technology should
be
considered another arrow, albeit a very important one, in the overall
engineering quiver for effecting solutions. Expert systems failed as a
silver bullet in the 1980's, but are now routinely included as part of
the
overall engineering approach to solving many problems. This is an area
where
DoD can grab the bull by the horns and lead the way with significant
funding, and with some degree of risk, or sit back and wait for
industry to
fully prove the use of the technology - probably several years down the
road. It all depends on how bad the problem is, or is perceived to be,
and
someone within DoD leadership that is willing to actually tackle the
problem. There were many in the Navy and government that were doubtful
of
Admiral Rickover's vision of nuclear propulsion for submarines. Someone
eventually had to bite the bullet and fund it. (06)
John Flynn
BBN Technologies (07)
-----Original Message-----
From: cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Conklin, Don
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 1:22 PM
To: common upper ontology working group
Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] Completed exchange with Jim Hnedler (08)
+2 (09)
Technology transition is so broken in DoD that it is amazing that R&D
funding hasn't been threatened by the lack of transition. (010)
I do agree with Jim Hendler that we are at the point where this
technology needs to be taken seriously and that means a large scale
deployment with adequate (I would never be so naive as to hope for
robust) funding. A lot of problems will be found and fixed in the
process. I do not know of any acquisition agency fond of such a
challenge as they are risk adverse by nature. We have to offer a
solution with low enough perceived risk to these organizations and high
enough benefit that they might actually pay for it. And we'd better
succeed right out of the gate as there will be no second chance. (011)
Don Conklin
Lockheed Martin IS&S
7021 Harbour View Blvd, Suite 105
Suffolk, VA 23435
757-935-9581 Office
757-935-9563 Fax (012)
-----Original Message-----
From: cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Doug Holmes
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 12:53 PM
To: common upper ontology working group
Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] Completed exchange with Jim Hnedler (013)
+1
Doug
On Feb 20, 2007, at 9:31 AM, ajit kapoor wrote: (014)
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------- (015)
> ----------
>
>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
> (016)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (017)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (018)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (019)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (020)
|