September 8, 2005
Bead Threads
sometimes merge and separate
ß the “Taos Discussion” . this thread on
generative methodology à
( note a four month lag exists to the note bead in
this thread --> [116] )
In reply to Taos Discussion [28]
Several of the knowledge scientists point out that
the marketing language for the Mark III is not consistent with what we know
from our studies of science.
Dennis’s reply is:
Paul, Ken, Amnon and others -
Thank you for your feedback.
If there was too much emphasis on marketing or I came off high toned, I apologize. That was not my intention. Dr. Ballard has always cautioned me to establish the science first, then expand out from there. And my friend Dr. Robert Smith has countered me several times for using comments that were to general, or as Amnon pointed out, lacked "corroboration for this assertion."
You all deserve a higher level of thoughtfulness and I will do my best to deliver in the future.
This situation has, however, created an interesting example of mediating structures and opposing view points. When I talk with business people, all they want to hear is, What do you have? How is it used? Why should I care? and How do I make money with it? Investors want a 30 second elevator speech, and then want to know, How much do we need? How is it going to be used? What is the return? and What is the exit plan?
What seems to be consistent across all disciplines, is the demand for "trustworthiness," measured in many ways.
I though your comments were particularly interesting Ken. While I am gone I hope Dr. Ballard will find time to respond to the question of knowledge science. In the meantime, no matter what is said, our semantic technology and knowledge engineering practices just work. They have been tested through major projects, which can be duplicated by others any time they wish. It is this proven, real world experience that has given Knowledge Foundations it credibility.
My best to all.
Dennis