Center of Excellence Proposal
à
White Paper on Incident
Information Orb Architecture (IIOA) à
Adi Structural Ontology Part I
à
On the W3C standards
Note to an old friend (see [16] )
The note is entirely expected. You know my thoughts about how important it is for those who are senior knowledge scientists to at least talk about the limitations of the current paradigm a little bit. My criticism is not sever, and not without a positive alterative. There is a well developed linkage into scholarly literatures (see for example [**]. and {**}. )
The viewpoint I, and others,
express is one that is revealing of a type of wasted effort, or a non-optimal
effort. But beyond this, the new Foundation in Taos
is working on producing an objective understanding of the social science that
allows society to deal effectively with the business/religious behaviors that
are at core to this grievous problem. Your
note suggests an agreement with this viewpoint and the understanding of a ubiquitous
inhibition of the expression of real scientific judgment. But we need to make a living. I have chosen to leave a contract with Lockheed Martin
rather than be part of what I see as pure treason in a time of war.
Your note to me, and its contents, is vital to
be known. Not the note itself, but the contents and a simple analysis as
to why and how the W3C standard is failing.
Your note is characteristic of others that are sent to me, also asking
that identities not be revealed.
The contents of your note is
vital to be known to those who make Congressman investigations into the
recently failures of IT system to modernize around a reasonable data modeling paradigm
(the W3C standard being the leading candidate). I can report this as a
reporter would, and declare that my sources are confidential. So you need
to be concerned for any professional repercussions.
The identity of yourself, and the
company you work with/for, is not important.
What is important is that the
reader be able to understand that part of the story is the about the
inhibitions you feel about doing your science, knowledge science.
There is the illusion that a
real company, using ontological methods, dealing with real clients today
will allow a real scientist to act in a responsible fashion. We, all of
the knowledge scientists, have seen this and been there. We share a
common story with these business processes.
So I do not count on your
becoming important enough to the company where you would be able to put the hat
of a scientist on. The standard notions about "professionalism"
will not allow this. This issue is greater than any that our nation and
the world faces; as it is the issue of whether or not the polemics that are
created by business/religions will ever allow the light of day to shine.