Jim, I hope to review this version too, but might have to slip to the
weekend. (01)
Thanks,
Leo (02)
_____________________________________________
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 Schoening, James R
C-E LCMC CIO/G6
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 12:21 PM
To: common upper ontology working group
Subject: [cuo-wg] Completed exchange with Jim Hnedler (04)
CDSI WG, (05)
I completed about a dozen email exchanges with Jim Hendler.
Below is his final response. (06)
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. (07)
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. (08)
Jim Schoening (09)
-----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 (010)
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 (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (012)
|