Technological Innovation as
an Evolutionary Process
On the response from the academic community
Series of notes between Prueitt and one of the leaders
in the Semantic Web community
Short “Systems AS-IS”
Paper
Short “Finding the Balance” Paper
On why the Academic Community
is too busy to address this issue
Semantic Web fiction
(one page pdf)
Ontology driven information systems, contrast to
Semantic Web (10 page pdf from Semagix Inc)
(This material is a characterization produced from several emails)
From
JH Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 6:35 PM
I
do not wish to be involved in or endorse this project. I will repeat this request with a
"reply all" to make sure all the other people understand that my name
does not connote endorsement. -J H
From
PSP Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 6:41 PM
You
are welcome to make your position clear to the others.
As
I have stated before, you and your students peer review the work that I
do.
The
fact that you are part of an establishment is true. The conjecture that we are making is that the establishment has
made specific errors. Specifically we
challenge the high levels of funding for strong AI and for Semantic Web
technologies.
It
is noted that academic computer science received $1.23 Billion in federal
funding last year, compared to $310 million for mathematics and $0 for the
knowledge sciences. Funding within
industry for computer science is mixed with funding for IT marketing. But society spends a little under 500
Billion per quarter on IT.
We
claim that an informal Artificial Intelligence – Semantic Web (AI/SW) monopoly
has developed. (Such things do
happen.) We claim that this informal
AI/SW monopoly inhibits what would otherwise be competitive scholarship on a
natural information science. The claim
does not say that everything done in the name of AI of SW has been poorly
done. But effectively the claim is that
any proposal that suggest fundamental challenges to the AI mythology are black
balled.
Furthermore
entire works have been negatively impacted by the degree to which you carry an
authority over what is “good proposals for funding”. Over and over again there is a choice to fund AI/SW work or the
natural information science. My
community will testify to this.
As
a result of funding decisions natural information science has not been
developed along with computer science.
We
seek a discussion on the merits of the concepts assumed to be true because of
the hundreds of “IT standards” processes and the professional peer review
processes. We call for a funding
process and a series of conferences.
When
AI/SW guys are challenged, you adopt authority positions which essential say
that you are right because you and your fiends have the committee process and
that somehow those who will gather together under the SW deception can gather
together and make truth consensual. The
fact that economic interests control these standards processes is a secondary
issue, which you also wish to marginalize.
From
JH Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 6:49 PM
I
know you are of that opinion. I ask you
to stop writing to people and looking for someone to support your notions.
From
PSP Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 7:07 PM
I
feel that there is a need to the bring light to the claims that the Semantic
Web folks have developed and to make a serious challenge to the underlying
assumptions that are made.
Your
work is a prime example of a position.
You make a claim that others have examined your work. Your work is highly rated, and anyone can
see the quality that it has. But the
foundational assumptions are questioned.
However,
the real issue has to do with the monopoly that your community has on
funding. If the alternative viewpoints
were given similar funding the problem of who is peer reviewing the grants and
contracts would not have come up.
From
JH Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 7:30 PM
The
rules of scientific debate are long established and crafted by many years of
scientific discourse - I play by those rules.
I respect others who have learned those rules and play by them, and I
have entertained discussion in public and private with many people (including you).
Your
efforts to raise money for your private endeavors are outside those rules.
From
PSP Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 7:07 PM
I
have not said that you are endorsing my call for a national project.
My
position is that the Web Ontology Working Group game is not producing something
that is grounded in natural science.
There
are several extreme injustices here.
One is the degree to which the community that could contribute to the
natural information sciences is abused.
If
the National Educational Project to Establish the Knowledge Sciences is funded,
the situation will give these individuals cover and they will speak up more
freely.
I
am not merely acting to further a (as you call it) “private endeavor”.