ORB Visualization
4/3/2004
7:07 PM
We are proposing ”technology
collaboration” where some of the best technologies are re-integrated by
some of the best minds to produce a new generation of technologies within six
months. Under a proposed joint
agreement, resulting new intellectual property will be claimed by the
participants and assigned by scientific peer review. Based on these assignments, new patents may be filed by the
participants.
BCNGroup Inc proposal to
In-Q-Tel Inc (April 5th, 2004)
Ben
It would be easier to accomplish things like what Object Science Corporation was, and is, doing for INSCOM, if people like you and I where able to just develop the systems in a direct way, while having some latitude to experiment in methods and technique.
Glenn certainly agreed with this and in fact championed this notion while I was there. But the situation continues to be difficult for good faith efforts for lots of reasons. Only a few of these have to do with me.
Ok, well that is that. Everyone knows the history.
Underlying the work you have done, and which is given in the paper : "Data Analysis, with the Biomind AI Engine" are data encoding methods (BiomindDB) and analytic methods (Biomind AI Engine) with allow operations to occur in a fast and efficient way. The J2EE and XML application server framework you have is in order to interface with other systems at INSCOM, and to generalize from Bio informatics to text analysis.
Like wise methods and insights from text analysis that Amnon and I have could make surprising bypasses to current limitations in the BioMind or in other similar systems.
But we both know that the tuning of these methods could be accomplished much better if a knowledgeable team was able to just focus on the science, in a true application task, for 6 months. The problems here are two fold.
1)
The
tasks important "now" to the client is classified and
2) there are just not very many pure scientists working in this classified sitting.
What my work on the Knowledge Sharing Foundation concept suggests is that both of these problems can be solved easily and with a small investment (500K - 600K) and within six months. If the current proposal I have to In-Q-Tel would be discussed, then I could make some updates to the plan:
http://www.bcngroup.org/investment/Capitalization.doc
and bring my decisions under review by a business manager.
Under the Ontologystream plan, collaboration will occur between four or five businesses, each one having risks associated with collaboration. So In-Q-Tel needs to protect new IP and to make sure that each company is in a win-win situation.
I think I know the entire IP landscape, and with your help we could map whose is whose and see if the win-win situation can be created based on new IP for each company. In each case, the companies have individuals (often more than one) who would be able to quickly understand the complete landscape.
New intellectual property would be generated and "kept" by the principles, your self, myself and the other six scientists. A deep problem
event structure analysis (syntagmatic analysis)
and prediction (of function/meaning)
could be solved for the first time in a way that was simple because it was direct.
The CCM model (Applied Technical Systems Inc) would be involved, as would Amnon's parsers and the innovation I will discuss in a minute. Some knowledge propagation technology such as hinted at by Tacit's new system, or Acappella Software, or Traction will also be involved in a push / pull portal where conceptual fidelity will be high. An Acappella solution to knowledge vetting within a critical and complex task has been shown (but again the client has an interest in not allowing this solution to be seen by other companies in the same sector). One will always need the Schema Logic server capabilities since very few actually get this need to have diversity in viewpoint. I do not think that Breanna, founder of SchemaLogic, has a competitor as yet.
One of the really good things I did while I was Senior Scientist at Object Sciences was to bring you on as consultant, and I a pleased that you are still doing work for them.
Here is what I would like to propose.
In-Q-Tel CEO Gilman Louie is out of the country last week and next and should be back by mid April. Before he left, he said that he would talk to me when he returned.
Maybe Louie will see a way to fix the bind my insistence on this type of work has gotten me into.
In-Q-Tel made an investment (I do not know the details) in a company called NovoDynamics,
which had developed a sound technical means to examine complex compounds and predict function from a detailed expression of descriptors
http://www.novodynamics.com/products/arborpharm.html
NovoDynamics has two things which are important to your work. First, they have excellent long term relations to two top-10 pharmaceutical companies. Second, they have, like you, an analytic engine and a data encoding structure that supports the massive scale of analysis needed.
Being able to compare the two systems in a general context would immediately lead to new insights and new Intellectual Property.
This is the type of work that we could do if In-Q-Tel would makes the investment ($900,000) that I have asked for.
I would hope that you would express support for this type of proposal, or an alternative that would allow In-Q-Tel and perhaps NovoDynamics to examine the BioMind technology closely and under some type of joint agreement to share new IP and to assist in developing mutual markets.
Please share your thoughts on this with me.
And please let me know if you are comfortable with my sharing the paper "Data Analysis, with the Biomind AI Engine" with seven intervals that I think should be involved in such a joint project. (I can not share their names until I can get some sense of where In-Q-Tel will be on this.) In each case, the contribution is technical. I have compromised on my feeling that first-rate scholars like Pribram and Sowa should be paid to peer review the work. It may be that this request to involve these scholars was why the NIMA funding was denied?
Paul
We founded, in 1997, a Not for Profit Foundation
Please consider a membership or contribution