[242]                           home                           [244]

 

Saturday, November 26, 2005

 

 The BCNGroup Beadgames

National Project à 

Challenge Problem  à

 Center of Excellence Proposal à

 

 

 

 

Discussion about ONTAC forum

ONTAC stands for Ontology and Taxonomy Coordinating Working Group

It is a working group of

Semantic Interoperability Community of Practice (SICoP)

 

Final communication (Paul Prueitt) to the ONTAC forum

 

 

 

This recent discussion in the ONTAC forum and on the sidelines is a discussion the nature of which the American people need to see and understand.  There are many who are trying to figure out how to make this discussion visible. 

 

Why?  Because these Semantic Interoperability Community of Practice (SICoP) working groups influence how many millions of dollars, if not Billions, are spent.  It is worst than that, over the past decade real progress is not made.  There is a path forward, but this is not the one being taken by the government. 

 

This absence of progress effects how our science and society advances issues critical to enhancing human interaction and communication during crisis.  So obstacles do matter.  This obstacles need to be exposed and understood.  Of course there is lots of well intending workers.  But something is wrong. 

 

John Sowa may say that there is not enough funding for this work to be done properly, and I agree... that is why we have developed a proposal for a (1.2 B over five years) National Plan to create a science of knowledge systems.

 

http://www.bcngroup.org/area2/KSF/nationalProject.htm

 

The members of the ONTAC forum can make their own judgment.

 

I have developed the awareness, in some of your minds, that there is a knowledgeable and scholarly community that is held back.

 

Others have become fishermen or gas station attendants because in spite of having earned PhDs their work runs up against narrow peer review. Many were never able to complete the advanced degrees because their innovations would run contrary to this fundamentalism.

 

see: http://www.ontologystream.com/area2/KSF/KnowledgeScience.htm

 

 

 

If John wants to debate issues, then let us develop the issues clearly.    à [244]

 

I have NOT said that people should NOT use Databases, for example.  What I have said is that there is an extensive literature that suggests that computer science has foundational issues that will not let it move beyond the values that were achieved with the relational database.  The core practical problem is that a data schema fixes a specific organization to the data. etc...

 

The work that others have done involves data encoding that leaves the schema to a last minute organization.  But this is not just my work; it is the work of many others - all of which set on the sidelines as the "intellectual authorities" play these games.

 

I thank you all for some excellent conversation, I learned a lot.

 

 Paul Prueitt