Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Additional reading:
Cory Casanave's paper on Data
Access
work on ontology for biological signal pathways
[131]
ß parallel discussion in
generative methodology bead thread
Question about the extend of use of the eBusiness standards
Earlier
part of this discussion
[342], [343], [344], [345], [346], [347], [348], [349], [350]
Mills,
I am contracted to do some work in the eBusiness domain,
and have just completed reading several dozen papers, mostly OASIS production
work.
I am struck that you may know the answer(s) to a question
that does not get asked often, and that is the extent to which e-Business is
being integrated using well defined Service Oriented Architecture (such as is
specified in the current OASIS standards).
I am ccing a few others whom you and I know, to perhaps we
can get an objective discussion relevant to the coming (hoped) transformation
of B-2-B and G-2-B data transaction interoperability and supply chain analysis
methodology.
There are also question about the types of use, and the
extent of use within each type.
Do you have details about Internet use specific to the use
of the Internet to enhance supply chain performance and human communication
between enterprises?
Clearly the Rita Hurricane response suggested that
communication and supply chain interoperability has specific areas of successes
and failures. The successes and
limitations can also be seen in the context of the war in Iraq where the
transaction models during the invasion were almost perfect, and yet there was
no transaction model for after the invasion.
I would take as a 10, the scenario of a full scale
(government infrastructure deployment) of CoreSystem.... including Klausner's
human communication interoperability functions.
I would take Rosettanet is a 6, because of the limited
scope and use. Rosettanet seems to have
stalled several years ago, and is not likely to retake a leading position. (Conjecture)
I would take Semantic Web as a 5 because of the inherit
and largely ignored limitations to the unique identifier requirement and to the
complicated nature of the W3C standards. (see discussion on "low hanging
fruit", below)
I would take as a question mark, the new OASIS standards
for Web Service Modeling Language, Web Service Modeling Ontology, Web Service
Execution Environments. I have reviewed
the current drafts and see a completed project that maps to existing forward
looking hardware (like XML accelerators) and which addresses the flexibility
issues using orchestration and mediation within a reasonable theory of small
finite state machines. I see well
specified concept representation WITHOUT the confusion of the many varieties of
"logics".
The current OASIS standards are not CoreSystem, but
CoreSystem is a design specification that does not map to the current hardware
and social issues.
The W3C approach picks the lowest hanging fruits, but does
so in a way that the technology and tools required to pick higher do not exist
and can not be constructed from the technology and tools that have become
heavily invested in.
The OASIS standards have now, and in a complete fashion,
provided what can now be implemented almost everywhere - due to the existence
of methodology such as change management, hardware solutions such as embedded
Internet SOA routing nodes, and XML accelerators and do to a maturing viewpoint
about the nature of complexity and non-computability, as defined by Robert
Rosen.
The W3C investment cannot be transformed due to the errors
in the foundations (theorem provers and unique and "external" IDs
being the two most well known.)
The mismatch between "promise" and
"performance" is extensive, ubiquitous, and extreme. Because a large amount of government funds
are used (and actually wasted) on the development of IT modernization programs,
like eCP and others, there is an issue of "false claims" being raised
in the Congress and in certain academic circles. This is a hard issue to raise, for several reasons.
The false claims conjecture may be justified, as some
knowledge engineers do privately, by the notion that there is no good
(reductionist) solution to a critically needed market demand; and thus any
attempt (however flawed) is justified.
The underlying assumption has to do with the key offending element of
the W3C approach - that of a closed world assumption.
The additional claim that alternatives (such as the OASIS
standards) are shaped to conform to the strongest force (the W3C standards)
leads to the conjecture that a diversity of viewpoints are not properly aired
(in the spirit of attempting to actually address the barriers to solution.)
The analysis that is needed is a full who, where, what,
when, how and why framework for understanding the actual transformation path
from where we are and have been, to a world where a great deal more
transparency is available on supply chains and global economic
transactions.
The positive value proposition is huge, but is distributed
in and outside of the IT sector. Thus
the distributed value stakeholders have to have a say in the CIO councils of
government and industry. But to provide
this voice, the stakeholders need to have objective and clear knowledge of what
is occurring... for example in supply
chain methodology and in work on the foundations of ontological modeling (most
of which are not W3C similar).
Dr Paul Prueitt
The Taos Research Institute
Taos New Mexico