Hello Antoinette (01)
And thanks for your interest
Apologies for omitting my credentials. (I do not seem to get signature
file working in Mozilla, my email client.) (02)
I am a knowledge engineer, with a strong interest in
interdisciplinarity, I specialise in content management systems design
I haven't published anything too conclusive of my own yet, but I am sure
I am onto something (03)
Paola Di Maio (04)
Arsic, Antoinette wrote: (05)
>So, PDM, do you have a name? Please introduce yourself.
>
>
>------------------------------
>Antoinette Arsic
>The MITRE Corporation
>703-983-5286 (office)
>443-567-2703 (cell)
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pdm
>Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 3:48 PM
>To: Obrst, Leo J.
>Cc: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
>Subject: [ontac-forum] Re: ontology, language, logic, and what we
>intend to do here in ONTAC: what DO we want to do in ONTAC?
>
>Dear Leo
>
>Thanks for your in depth comment.
>
>Let me just reiterate that I am not a subscriber to this list
>Yes I agree cross posting may not be a good n general but if a
>discussion belongs to both lists then cross posting is the appropriate
>thing to do, as I believe it was the case on this occasion
>
> Also, because I am not a subscriber, my posts here are moderated that
>
>means that if something is not compliant to posting rules it will not
>be
>approved, full stop. (please approve this one though!)
>
>A diuscussion list can have operational goals, and goals may benefit
>from relevant and adequate discussions.
>The two are not mutually exclusive, by any means. You are not a
>bastars, but your world seems very black and white - surely for a
>reason
>
>Considering adding a new semiotic layer to ontological constructs may,
>or may not, be critical to knowledge domains, including to the work
>and
>the goals of this list.
>That is what my question was about. Simply ignoring a question is
>generally enough for a thread to fade.
>
>Should however this (totally speculative) hypothesis be true, then a
>lot of the work being done on this list and on many other lists, would
>
>be partially
>obsolete, and not only GOALS need revising, but perhaps also some
>axioms. I can see how change can be considered a threat to a non agile
>
>organisation.
>
>What you perceive as 'risk of failure' can be just evolution, things do
>
>not necessarily fail, they just cease to fulfil a purpose and transform
>
>into something else
>Not necessarily a bad thing, especially if that original purpose no
>longer reason to be pursued.
>
>As a project manager I share your sense of responsibility to get things
>
>done within a given boundary, so apols if this semiotic question has
>diverted your attention
>where it is not likely to be productinve for the moment, I ll make
>sure
>I ll conform to the charter, and next time I post to thiis group it
>will be an articulate piece of thinking rather than just an 'intution;
>
>Keep me posted if something new in your conceptual framework in the
>future, I think there might be some work to be done there
>
>
>Cheers
>
>PDM
>
>
>
>
>>PDM,
>>
>>Your comment:
>>"Broader perspectives, a higher understanding of the top level issues,
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>increased commnication flow and general improved sense of orientation
>>are likely to help any list ACHIEVE any GOAL better and faster."
>>
>>Unfortunately I no longer believe so. I think there are discussion
>>lists and there are working lists, which also have discussions. The
>>difference is that the latter focus their discussions on goals to be
>>achieved. There are also open and closed lists, depending on the
>>rationale for the list.
>>
>>In fact, I think open-ended philosophizing doomed the IEEE SUO list
>>
>>
>and
>
>
>>led to a failure to achieve its goals. The list eventually was seen as
>>being only a forum for endless disputation by armchair philosphers,
>>
>>
>and
>
>
>>those with much time on their hands. The real work was done offline by
>>smaller groups.
>>
>>I think there is definitely a need for discussion groups, but I think
>>there is also a need for working groups. Education, consensus
>>
>>
>building,
>
>
>>broader perspectives are important, but not necessarily if you want to
>>achieve specific goals. A given group has to define what it is and
>>
>>
>what
>
>
>>its goals are (if any), and its members either have to discipline
>>themselves to try to achieve those goals or a top-down structured
>>methodology must be employed (as for example, ISO, W3C, OMG, etc.,
>>standards groups have done).
>>
>>Confusing the type of group you are is bad. Look at some of the
>>arguments made recently about the impossibility of a common standard
>>upper ontology: they cite the failure of the IEEE SUO distribution
>>
>>
>list
>
>
>>to come to agreement. This is a fallacious, self-fulfilling argument,
>>to me, because endless argumentation dooms real achievement, i.e., we
>>didn't achieve what we wanted to because we argued incessantly and
>>therefore what we wanted to achieve is not achievable. It will doom
>>ONTAC too unless ONTAC is supposed to be just a discussion list. In
>>which case we can argue endlessly and newer members will raise the
>>
>>
>same
>
>
>>old issues again and again, without real resolution. Because there are
>>always newer, mis-, dis-, or un-informed members who will often have
>>strong opinions inversely proportional to their knowledge.
>>
>>I know I will seem to be an arrogant, elitist bastard who is trying to
>>squelch creativity, but I have seen too many lists fail. People who
>>
>>
>can
>
>
>>contribute the most drop off because of the high noise, and the list
>>flounders, reducing to argumentation among the latest members with too
>>much time and too little knowledge.
>>
>>If ONTAC is just a discussion list and has no additional goals, then I
>>will gladly drop out. As will others. I don't think that is the case,
>>hence invited Pat's response.
>>
>>By the way, profligate cross-posting to other distribution lists is
>>also typically not very productive.
>>
>>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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatin
>gWG
>
>
> (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|