John,
The way you state it, the answer is obvious. However ... (01)
This "community" can certainly have a set of ontological terms and concepts
that it agrees on and works with. Thus specific ontologies and tools can be
built around it. This, of course, assumes some process and management in
the community to do so. (02)
Community subscribers can certainly build ontologies and tools that are
grounded in that set of terms and concepts, thus making it a "local hub".
Various capabilities, political, economic and theoretical factors can help
such a community grow and have reason to build on such a local hub. (03)
The set of ontological terms and concepts will certainly be of much broader
interest if it has mechanisms of modularization/context/facets (pick your
favorite term) to allow it to integrate formally unrelated theories and
domains. We seem to be in broad agreement that this is both desirable and
possible. (04)
Given such a "local hub" it is certainly possible to form relationships with
other hubs, such that knowledge grounded in those hubs is then fully or
partially grounded in the local hub through inference. (05)
Such a local hub with the capabilities of modularization/context/facets
related to other hubs and with a library of specific tools and ontologies,
and with a managing sponsor such as the government, could well become <very
popular> and thus have a substantial impact on the integration of currently
unrelated knowledge. The "local hub" could eventually have a very wide scope
of "local" - success through adoption. (06)
So, the pursuit of a "local hub", which is as "universal" as we can make it,
may have substantial benefit even if it is not the one, true, cosmic and
universal answer. We don't need agreement outside of this community; we
need success at providing a compelling capability in a supportive community
ecosystem. (07)
-Cory (08)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 10:02 AM
To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] Re: The world may fundamentally be inexplicable (09)
David, (010)
I know that, you know that, and most of the people who
have day jobs working for managers who want results
know that: (011)
> The Legacy systems are NOT going to migrate anywhere,
> at least not in any great numbers or in rapid fashion.
>
> Legacy systems tend to have a life of their own that
> defies rebuilding.
>
> What happens is that legacy systems keep chugging along
> long past their expected service life. (012)
Unfortunately, some of the most vocal people who subscribe
to this list believe in the mantra (013)
*There shall be one ontology to rule them all.* (014)
And they keep talking and acting as if all systems based
on other ontologies or no explicit ontology at all will
wither and die as soon as they slip that one true ontology
onto their little fingers. (015)
But in the real world, there are still mission-critical
systems in daily use that are over 30 or even 40 years old,
and they're still chugging along. They are not going away. (016)
The #1 problem this group must face is co-existence with
systems that do not use *any* explicit ontology or some
ontology that is very different from their pet theory. (017)
John Sowa (018)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (019)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (020)
|