[268]                           home                           [270]

 

Sunday, December 04, 2005

 

 The BCNGroup Beadgames

National Project ŕ 

Challenge Problem  ŕ

 Center of Excellence Proposal ŕ

[bead thread on curriculum reform]

 

 

The Taos Institute

(on the possibilities)

 

 

 

 

 

 

John, your note to the ONTAC working group

 

http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/267.htm

 

summarizes the professional statements that the BCNGroup agrees is most relevant in regards to the limitations of formalism... specifically the relationship between any formalism and any natural language. 

 

Your published work moves one as far as one can go in creating a natural language that maps to first order logics (simple and, or, not, some and propositional statements regarding membership in categories.)

 

I wish to focus on a positive near term path.  Since, in my humble opinion, the viewpoint you express here ends certain non-productive discussions made by individuals who have not fully recognized the limitations of the W3C standards.  Moving to the OASIS standards seems entirely appropriate.

 

Dick, my query to you was about how a natural scientist might move from a (Pribram) neural-wave equation involving a Fourier transform (or Gabor transform) to a discrete model of the affordance structure in those equations.  In this way one might make the connection between the physical reality involved in mental event management in the brain and some type of field or discrete computation using computers.  The Pribram model of mental event formation is outlined in the third subsection of

 

http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/kmbook/Chapter1.htm

 

Karl (Pribram) has read this subsection (1998) and agrees that it is properly represented.

 

Additional neural models supporting my theory of substructural aggregation of pattern invariances into the mental event is given in Chapter four

 

http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/kmbook/Chapter4.htm

 

and works with James Houk's model of cerebellum. 

 

If I might ask us to focus on both the Mark 3 and the VivoMind technology, how they work and how they are related to other approaches to questions central to the proposition:

 

Demonstrate a methodology/technology for enterprise-wide systems that provides to scientists, business people and every day folk their needs and requirements.  The key is to make sure that

 

1)         the web services and service oriented architecture is fulfilled with engineered electronic data interchange standards. 

2)         scientists, in particular those working in the life sciences, have proper tools to define sets of concepts and relationships between concepts as controlled vocabularies – i.e. independent to any form of logic.

3)         a separate set of standards for inference is developed

 

What the BCNGroup is looking for is a way to fund the Roadmap, in a visible program where human mediated communication is enhanced as a real time function of an interaction between a hub of ontologies (defined merely as a set of concepts with relationships) and various programs that run over these sets.  The hub should have an common ontology that is loosely specified as a set of concepts (again without the imposition of a fixed logic).  I point at the set of concepts in the oil and gas industry ISO standard.  I also point at the OASIS working group on Reference Model for Service Oriented Architectures

 

http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/201.htm

 

The Mark 3 and VivoMind engines will plug and play within the architecture given in the RoadMap.

 

http://www.bcngroup.org/area1/2005beads/GIF/RoadMap.htm

 

I developed three beads yesterday regarding my own history - and my current focus on stepping towards a National Project to establish new science and a national infrastructure that focuses on quality knowledge exchanges.

 

http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/264.htm

http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/264.htm

 

 

and

 

http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/268.htm

 

The last is a political justification for creating a high quality (and not privately owned) communication infrastructure for our democracy.  I have estimated that the actual cost of such an infrastructure could be as low as 60M over a one or two year period.  Klausner’s CoreSystem concept should be studied as a model, but certain improvements made that brings the infrastructure on line as a public infrastructure – like the highway system. 

 

The low cost, $60,000,000, of this project takes into account wide spread adoption where industries develop and use an interface between corporate private data processing and the public infrastructure.  This interface is where web services are defined.

 

The business proposition is made to all those business processes, like my own fledgling virtual Taos, that need the computer science done correctly.  The deployment of the RoadMap technology is a first step towards getting the computer science done right.  This deployment integrates ten commercial systems (using the Orb construction as the core data interchange), in 6 months at a cost of $750,000.  The second step involves the development of curriculum covering basic technologies used in the RoadMap deployment. 

 

Finally, the Knowledge Sharing Core concept will be implemented.

 

It seems that the homework has been done.  We just need a decision maker to look closely at what is suggested in the Roadmap.