Interesting Exchange

Paul

Thanks for the note.

You missed the point of my comments.

Attached are some helpful hints:

1. Schools of Science:

There is NO "First" and "Second" school of anything. Technology is a random process; and the schools of scientific thought are created and destroyed at random. Some take longer to evolve, and longer die, than we would like. Your “School” definition is fictional, misleading and arrogant. You aren’t the God of IT.

<My response: Of course not, it is an opinion I have formed that there is something critically incorrect with IT, and this opinion is supported by a specific literature that I cite in my on-line book>

Pretending to be an established “School” is delusional and dangerous. Its just a bag of interesting ideas.

<My response: The school of thought is well established with the work of Sir Roger Penrose, Nicolas Rashevsky, and Robert Rosen. See discussion at: <link>

2. Intellect and Change:

Max Plank was right: Old paradigms don't die because the practitioners agree with the superior reasoning of the new paradigm. The old ideas die when the practitioners die; and are replaced with new generations schooled in the new paradigm. Your treatises and papers are interesting reading, and contain some useful insights. But, in the end, these are not useful or effective in persuading the old guard to change.

You wasting your time and others barking at the moon about “Schools”; Just Do It; and Stop Preaching.

<My response: We are just “doing it”. The Roadmap takes 10 COTS products and puts them into a integrative system that is defined by well defined and well published differential ontology framework. >

3. Technology Vs Product:

You have cobbled together some interesting ideas. But, these are not a complete, integrated, or defined approach to the problem, and are certainly not a serious development plan; and absolutely not a product. Pretending to have an organization, a technology base, a development team and a product plan is self-defeating. If you really have a real product; print a data sheet, and call me when I can buy a copy.

<My response: My life’s work is not something “cobbled together” any more than your vision of a world wide integration of all commercial transaction data. >

You have a real “product” when I see a GSA number and a distributor training conference in Las Vegas.

4. Government Value

The US government is potentially a source of value; but rarely a source of cash flow for technology development. The feds can’t/won’t/shouldn’t fund R&D and product development; they can only purchase COTS/GOTS products with GSA schedule pricing, warranties, and service support. So, pretending to have a “product plan” for a federal agency to purchase is arrogant, foolish, and potentially illegal. In the end: you will fail to deliver a product; and fail to support it; and thereby devalue your ideas.

<My response: Current practice just is not anything like what you are describing. >

If you want the feds to “support” the program; sign up a CRDA; and use it to raise real funding.

5. Language:

You completely missed the point about language: “Language Neutral” means you don't have an understanding of the natural language problem, or a real solution. All you have defined is simple extraction to unique vernacular natural language static domains using simple semantic triples. Doesn't matter how many Unicode language modules you hang on it.

Google is “language neutral”; and so is my dog.

<My response: You are not listening and not looking for a solution here.>

6. Technology and Leadership

You have some good ideas and have engaged some smart people. But, no one can serious engage with your ideas when you pretend to be the “God of All IT Knowledge”; and “Saint Peter of the Second School of IT”. I worked with Bob Noyce for 7 years; and he never once told me how smart he was, or why the invention of the integrated circuit or microprocessor was the “Second School”.

Go find a university, a 501 hobby shop, a CRDA, DARPA deal or an NSF grant and get your act together.

<My response: Your understanding of the situation is not complete. I do not know were one develops an attack on my personally because I, along with many others, is claiming to understand why AI and W3C based ontology projects are failing. >

7. Technology and Culture:

Telling key people in the process they are stupid, lazy and criminal is not the best education technique. I always assume I am the dumbest person in the room; and hope to learn something at meetings….

<My response: This is not my experience with the meetings we have had. You seem absolutely convinced about everything you do. When you do come to an understanding, it is hard to get you to revisit this understanding. For example, you claim that all I have done is

“simple extraction to unique vernacular natural language static domains using simple semantic triples “

You use this claim to explain to others about my work, and yet there is a falseness to this claim that you act to not allow to be exposed. >

Peace

<My response: We all work on these issues – and understand the other’s limitations. I understand mine pretty well. >

Roadmap