[66]                               home                            [67]



Saturday, August 14, 2004


The BCNGroup Beadgames



On the issues of separation of syntax and semantics pragmatics  à .


Previous  proposed technology evaluation   à  .


On forming the team


The inhibitory role of think tanks and consulting incumbents


This is a temporary posting.  Our position is that the light of day has to be shone on specific phenomenon.


However, if the institutions involved “get it” then we can move on into a new future.





If IDA and/or Arlington Institute wants to be involved in a non-solicited proposal and hopefully a 90-day project, to demonstrate and study the PriMentia, Orb and Readware integration then they should provide some resources, contacts and discussions.  A contribution of $5,000 to help in short term operating expenses might also be appropriate, at least from IDA given the levels of capital expenditures that the US government has made to IDA for expertise in these areas. 


Everyone must acknowledge that the small innovators, as a community, are either out of the market or operating without salaries.  The reason is simple.  The incumbents are universally exhibiting predatory behavior that harms the small innovators.  The fact that this is happening can be seen in the behavior of In-Q-Tel which is the “venture capital” corporation set up by the government to fund the development of software needed by the CIA.  This is the function of In-Q-Tel as defined by law.  It is questioned by many that this function is properly addressed at the present time.  Readware Inc, Ontologystream Inc, and PriMentia Inc have all been “evaluated” by In-Q-Tel and we have found the evaluation completely vacant of perception about any issue other than business case issues.   Moreover, we are willing to submit our work to objective evaluation within a community of scholars. 


This is a political issue and will be addressed to members of the Congress as a political issue.  Incumbents, on the other hand, are flush with money and tasks that they are often not able to fulfill due to either absence of expertise or limited personnel.  Few have show abilities to even outline the issues related to the semantic and pragmatic issues related to this project.


My interest has been in reflecting some of the white papers on intelligence technology that were produced at IDA, and to redevelop the design principle for Arlington Institute’s DIANA software but based on the core engine being a Hilbert engine rather than a database.  Because of concerns by business processes, I will state that there is no current or past endorsement by IDA or the Arlington Institute of my work. 


It has become necessary to say the following:


It is my impression, and solely my impression, that a groupthink has developed where by businesses are narrowly focused on making money and that this is the number one concern.  Many hundreds of others are in agreement that this phenomenon explains our personal and professional experiences over the past three or four years.  We see that this phenomenon has been around for a long time, but the degree to which the phenomenon has dominated us has become extreme since 9-11-2001.  The incumbents set the stage and absorb billions of dollars while inhibiting the competition that would come from true innovators.  Hundreds of millions are spend in programs whose functional purpose is to support small business processes, but the game there is only won if the technology is not seen as a serious challenge to the incumbents.  Our group has specific histories that are illustrative of this phenomenon. Secrecy and related business practices make it impossible for objective scientific discussion. 


Memetic structures, shallow claims that cannot be examined on merit, protect the groupthink by marginalizing any objection that the system in unfair and not allowing a diversity of innovations to drive the evolution of the markets.  So the market has ceased to be Darwinian, ie “competitive” in nature, and has become completely controlled by a few very large corporations. 


All of this can be reduced to the simple sentence:


Leading information scientists believe that open scientific dialog that must occur now.  See bead [ ** ]. 


Our position is clear.  Our concern is that business processes are far too dominate and that the project we are embarking on must place business interests as secondary to the open dialog by the small number of information scientists who are involved with the BCNGroup mediated discussions.  The revenue needed, 150K – 200K, to complete this 90-day task is quite small, when compared with the huge expenditures flowing to the consulting and think tank industry. 


It is public knowledge that IDA, and many other incumbent organizations,  have funding instruments that are proper for funding a 50K preliminary development and integration so that the "search plus knowledge of language" engine can be studied.  A report can be generated based on a review of the issues and a discussion of the technology and the notational system developed by Prueitt.   The IDA study could be applied to any one of four or five things that have been discussed with Prueitt, and for which it was communicated, during a hiring interview process, that IDA knew no available solution.  This information is not proprietary or held within a non-disclosure agreement. 


The community of information scientists must talk openly about the fact that the government has trusted IDA, and a few other think tanks, to know what the leading technologies are.  The BCNGroup’s dialogs are about assisting these think tanks to focus less on narrow competitive issues and more on the leading work that our group will be bringing together in the very near future.


If this work can be quickly facilitated, then we can start with this team.  Otherwise we have to open this discussion up to a larger community and to political exposure.  We accept no constraints on our freedom to express clearly the experiences we have in trying to get financial support for work that is clearly relevant to a crisis that the Nation is having with the information technology it has purchased.  We also accept no constraints on our description of general systems theory that explains to us why the procurement process in IT is not producing optimal results.