|
Roy,
In looking at the diagram "Progression of Written Information"
attached to your last communication I was impressed with it. The
development of an ontology hub is suggested by the progression of elements
in your diagram. The progression starts with the development of human
language. So ontological modeling is seen as a mere extension of the
phenomenon of human languages. The computer, computation and the Internet
is where this extension is occurring.
I have formed the opinion that Tim Berners-Lee's notion of
Semantic Web is a polemic that hides from us the possibility of a naturally
occurring "ontologyhub". As some evidence for this, I found that www.ontologyhub.com and www.ontologyhub.net , are both
unregistered - and just registered them for use later on. www.ontologyhub.org is registered
but goes nowhere.
As in other polemics, the products of the Semantic Web standards
processes produces memetic mechanisms that divert attention to something that
has hidden consequences. The concept of "memetics" (as developed by
Blackmore and Dawkins (“The Selfish Gene” and others) is itself a polemic or
polemic complex. The essential insight, that genes are not the only
replicator mechanism is lost because polemics are created to avoid this
insight. The creations need not to be "conscious", so I am not talking
about individual intent.
The recent vote 302 to 3 by the House of Representatives to oppose
the "immediate withdraw of US troops from Iraq" is a classical example of an
intentional polemic. Those who had to vote for this resolution had a
complex argument as to why they felt insulted by the requirement to go along
with something (a polemic).
My sense is that the last hub-like element captures the
essence of what will eventually be used with an
ontology core. Such a core would likely
be developed by one smart individual, not a W3C standards
committee, who has internalized many other attempts at ontology development
and "accidentally" creates an synthesis that is so useful that that core
ontology is used by everyone. Not as something forced as in an
ontology Tsar but as if simply new natural language.
As Mathew said to John (in this e-forum),
MW: I quite agree, but the death of legacy systems comes when the
cumulative addition of functionality makes the system unstable, and a rewrite is
easier than continuing maintenance.
John (Sowa) has communicated to me, and to others, pessimism about
an impossibility imposed by a legacy that exists. There are two parts to
John's observation, which I feel he and we should take apart and deal with
separately.
The first part is factual. This software legacy exists. The
actual functionality was designed to reflect IT interests more than social
interests. (One has to pause and think about the representation I have
made here. I am saying something merely as an observation having no
criticism attached.) Starting with the operating system that has dominated
the market, we have computer science that is properly created IF one wishes to
endow IT service providers with an increasing control over wealth.
The second part is judgmental. Has the legacy infrastructure
provided to society (not merely the business part of social activity, but
society in the broadest sense) with optimal value. By optimal value, I
mean a value to society that is only now a distant potential that MIGHT be
developed from the reality of computer-based functions. Sandy Klausner's work, for
example, would be able to deliver a maximum value to society IF it was
deployed as a federal government paid for infrastructure like the highway
system.
Imagine if individuals or corporations owned all paved roads. Imagined that the owners charged a fee
and imposed a social agreement on anyone wanting to travel on that
particular road. Suppose that the
social agreement was to not use roads that were free to use. Some free roads would exists but the
type of open use of transportation that we have now would not exist.
This situation is what we have with corporate ownership and
individual IT professional control over the development of code ... and
specially the development of early ontology specifications. The problem is larger than IT
professionalism, of course.
The BCNGroup's call for a White House lead national project is
based on the realization that IT and business interests have gained an
absolution control over something that could be much more valuable to society if
standards were generated outside this control. Here I am talking
specifically about the shallowness of the W3C standards
processes.
OASIS does have deeper voices. But the concept of a standards committee
has fundamental flaws, starting with the empowerment of a few individuals to
create and enforce polemics. A
White House lead national project could deploy something like CoreSystem, or
something that certain individuals in this eforum could produce if allowed to,
and if supported with reasonable salaries.
The concept of a committee would shift to the concept of observing
natural communication between real individuals and entities. (Thus the importance to semantic
extraction as a measurement of ontological reality.)
My notes on a National Project are at
http://www.bcngroup.org/area2/KSF/nationalProject.htm
The specific plan to create a new infrastructure is
at:
http://www.bcngroup.org/area2/knowledgeSharingFoundation.htm
|