Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Resilience Project White Paper
(Response to note from The
Speaker’s Office [376] )
(Response ŕ to [376] )
Note from James Schoening (U.S. Army)
Paul,
Remove my email address from your mailing list. If you keep sending me email, you will be spamming me, which is illegal, not to mention unprofessional.
Jim Schoening
Reply
James,
We have had this discussion in the past. You are on my list for purposes of identifying who is involved in the problem.
You may of course place my addresses on your delete list or spam list.
Your paper is precisely the type of paper that identifies the seriousness of the IT procurement problem.
http://www.visualknowledge.com/wiki/CDSI
And you non-willingness to be part of a debate on the outcome of huge government expenditure is perhaps characteristic of “the customer”.
The BCNGroup blog has since 1997 documented, what might appear as, a type of dishonesty from program managers and government officials who have primary responsibility for moving government IT systems forward.
The investigation of this
community based “group think” is in line with John Maloney communication to the
BCNGroup ŕ
[379]
The preliminary work moving towards
the Resilience Project requires that the Powers That Be, your self and
individual program managers and peer review committees, be allows to establish
positions. See also the response of
Haym Hirst. ŕ [380] .
I do hope you will change your mind, and realize that the public discussion about the Resilience Project is vital to the National Security.
Related correspondence of James Schoening and Ajit Kapoor to the SICoP Members:
From: "Schoening, James
R C-E LCMC CIO/G6" <James.Schoening@us.army.mil>
To:
<sicop-forum@colab.cim3.net>
Sent: Monday, January 29,
2007 4:47 PM
Subject: [sicop-forum]Latest
Draft Paper "Data Interoperability across the
Enterprise - Why Current
Technology Can’t Achieve it."
SICoP Members,
Attached is the latest (and
perhaps final) version of the paper, "Data
Interoperability across the
Enterprise - Why Current Technology Can’t
Achieve it. Draft version
dated 29 January 2007." Special
thanks to Leo
Obrst for many good edits
and comments.
If there are no further
edits by 2 Feb, I will remove the "Draft"
designation and post the
final paper on the Cross Domain Semantic
Interoperability WG web site
at http://www.visualknowledge.com/wiki/CDSI.
I will also call a CDSI WG
conference call to brainstorm where we can send
the paper. Draft versions are starting to circulate
(I'm getting
inquiries), so it appears
there will be interest. Thanks to all
for your
input.
James R. Schoening
U.S. Army C-E LCMC CIO/G6
Office
Voice: DSN 992-5812 or (732)
532-5812
Fax: DSN 992-7551 or (732)
532-7551
Email: James.Schoening@us.army.mil
*******************
From: "ajit
kapoor" <ajitorsarah@bellsouth.net>
To: "Semantic
Interoperability Community of Practice" <sicop-forum@colab.cim3.net>
Cc: "Paul S Prueitt"
<psp@ontologystream.com>
Good work team. I like the
basic demarcation in the report that current
technologies will not meet
our future and current national security needs
and we need to look
elsewhere; I would like to emphasize that this also
means the current emphasis
on COTs need to be readdressed otherwise our
wasteful means will
continue.
Furthermore, in the next steps we should define a pragmatic
roadmap of how
to get measurable value from
the conclusion of this report. I would
recommend a two pronged
approach-first prong to address the requirements w/o
regard to current
technologies' limitations-a sort of EA roadmap projected
from the current
environment. This may be chaotic as current states are so
different, but they will
show a directional convergence at some times in the
future as should be the goal
of such an endeavor. The second prong should
architect a component
approach (architecture speak) to meet the short term
needs making sure the
implementation is plug and remove w/o an overall fork
lift operations. This way we
will deliver value using current technologies
and leverage its evolution
and still have a convergence path which will
provide for a
quasi uniform future architecture leading to an agile
development. The key element
of building responsiveness for national
security concerns.
Finally, we need to look at the
Resilience Project recommendations that Paul
et al have been discussing
and make it an integral part of our development
thinking.
Please do not tell me that
roadmap is not the goal of this project. In a
commercial environment my
CEO/CIO would fire me if I came up with a document
with no measurable benefits
and way to achieve it in a reasonable time.
Bottom Line: Our tax payers
need incremental National Security enhancement
and not PowerPoint slides
with a billion dollar tag. Academic excellence
while necessary will not
save us from terrorists.
regards
Ajit Kapoor