ORB Visualization
(soon)
How does the Knowledge Sharing Foundation become
self-sustaining?
National Project funding
duration and Housing
Please invite new members. Join the bcngroup e-forum and help develop a community-based conversation (a bead game) about the various issues involved in
1) Bringing forward the mature knowledge technologies in a useable fashion.
2) Addressing the knowledge management and social science issues.
3) Providing a new form to the computer science supporting semantic web processes.
If you cannot spring for the $75 membership fee, send an email to Nathan and he will wave the fee (Nathan@ontologystream.com). Gifts to the BCNGroup may also be made.
Let me restate what this is about. The goal is a Congressional bill providing $60,000,000 to establish the knowledge science by funding leading scholars to write a curriculum on the technology, the social science and the cognitive science. This curriculum will have two purposes. The first is to support the distance-learning requirement of the Knowledge Sharing Foundation concept:
http://www.bcngroup.org/area2/KSF/KSFArchitecture.htm
The second purpose is to develop the curriculum.
http://www.ontologystream.com/distanceLearning/VKC.htm
Knowledge sharing cores will be developed to produce revenue to make the process self - sustaining after two years.
http://www.bcngroup.org/area2/knowledgeSharingFoundation.htm
Many new inventions in algorithms and methodology will be privately peer reviewed by a committee (perhaps along the lines suggested by the BCNGroup Charter), before the invention is filed with the PTO as a patent application.
The committee will serve as if a doctorial committee on behalf of the candidate. But most of these inventions will be partially given to a committee (which could become the BCNGroup.org Scientific Committee).
This is a new model. So one has to think the issue though carefully.
Why would an inventor of new methods or algorithms in the knowledge sciences give up control and ownership over newly created Intellectual Property (IP)?
A model is developed that answers this question.
The initial government funding (60M) is to empower the BCNGroup Charter by creating the conditions whereby all, or many of the innovations that have not been invented as yet are given to a not for profit foundation. The mediation of the IP issue is then placed into the hands of the relevant science community, acting on a Nash principle (that there are social values that can not be reduced to self interest). The consequences of assuming responsibility, within a National Project, will benefit society as a whole.
Government funding is needed only for two years, at a rate of $30,000,000 per year. The funding would be co-administrated by four universities located in the District of Columbia; these universities are American University, Howard University, The George Washington University and Georgetown University.
A Not-for-Profit Corporation, the BCNGroup Inc, will manage patent ownership and licensing revenue for the Knowledge Sharing Foundation.
The Knowledge
Sharing Foundation
The BCNGroup was registered in Virginia in 1997.
The relationship between the academia and the BCNGroup is to be determined.
Yes, not everyone will want to give all or part of the ownership of new algorithms and methodologies. The BCNGroup is designed to take on a social responsibility.
http://www.bcngroup.org/site/charter.html
Significant resources have been used to bring the group to the position that we find ourselves in today.
The next, and perhaps immediate, step is the development of a competition of technologies and methodologies that target a transformation of most government regulatory agencies (FCC. FTC, etc ) into a more efficient information processing system. This transformation can then extend to agencies like HHS and DHS. In DHS the transformation using taxonomy and ontology is already under way.
This means the development and use of taxonomy and ontology to provide informational transparency and, yes, accountability in the regulatory agencies. It means the increasing use of knowledge sharing tools and methodologies.
The suggestion is that this competition must begin, now, without funding because no one is willing to take the risk and fund such a thing. The cultural change is resisted both in legal, and acceptable practice, and in illegal practice.
The cultural opposition to informational transparency by the government agencies is legendary. Specific and habitual behaviors have developed in the agencies and in the community of consulting prime contractors whose existence depends on the good well of the agencies. A series of experiences and discussions about these experiences within the OntologyStream Inc research group lead, in 2003, to an AS-IS model of the IT procurement life cycle:
http://www.bcngroup.org/procurementModel/as-is.htm
On Thursday, November 2oth, 2003, the OntologyStream Founder issued a complaint with the FCC Inspector General. This complaint will likely make national news. The research group is preparing evaluation of taxonomy life cycle technology and is working hard to have the evaluations completed so that the American people can see what can be accomplished with existing technologies.
http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/three.htm
The type of results that is possible from as many as 10 technology companies will surprise the policy makers who run the regulatory agencies.
The fact is that the technology is much more mature than what the agency heads believe. The main barrier is cultural.