Re: U.S. DoD WG expresses interest in upper ontologies
Friday, March 21, 2008 12:53 AM, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> I sense you infer some sort of moral taint to the work if it is
> supported by the U.S. DoD. That does not really follow. (Is the
> Internet so tainted because it was solely funded through all its early
> years by ARPA / DARPA?) They are not commissioning work on arms. Nor
> will seeking support for the work of creating a generic upper ontology
> elsewhere preclude DoD or its suppliers from using the results of that
> work for purposes of which you don't approve.
Let me explain you some simple things you tend to miss:
Ontology, in all its forms and ways, is deeply humanist activity,
humanitarian enterprise, dedicated to human welfare and closely tied up to
humanistic values.
USA DoD is the key mechanism of the war machine while ARPA/DARPA is the
brains of the military machine. From its very beginning, the latter was
organized for "for the direction or performance of such advanced projects in
the field of research and development as the Secretary of Defense shall,
from time to time, designate by individual project or by category." The
recent former president, who did its worst praying on feeble ''democratic''
post-Soviet Russia, tried to change the mentality of the military
''brains'', setting more civil aims, as doing:"Technology for America's
Economic Growth, A New Direction to Build Economic Strength.", changing the
name to ARPA. With the incumbent one, it again become the Defence ARPA
(http://www.darpa.mil/body/arpa_darpa.html)
There must not be any illusion these military folks all after wars (I
started my higher education in one of the best USSR Military Academies
specialized in ballistic missiles, and have some inside experience).
It looks the U.S. DoD key business is to do wars, feeding on these wars, on
megadeaths, destructions, inhuman cruelties, destroyed lives; profiting from
the humanitarian catastrophies. Somebody defined ''war as a politics with
bloodshed'' (it seems Mao). More correct definition would be: ''war is a
political business with bloodshed''. The military folks operate with the sum
of money, which neither the oil magnates nor narcomoguls could even dream.
Not multibillions, but trillions, which are making and are going to make
just from the two regional wars, see ''The Trillion-Dollar War'' book. Just
a fleet of F-35 amounts to almost one trillion US dollars. What we see now
is that the U.S. DoD is a huge trillion worth state business corporation
profiting on the mass murder and nations' destruction, and it's illegal
business activity hardly can be stopped with the first black president or
the first female president.
Again, don't have the illusion that the military generals and concerns with
their badly perverted worldviews (warfare ontology) are thinking about some
good humanistic application for the common ontology and its knowledge
applications, which are to be the summit of all human science and
technology. It is plain any military machine should be strictly restricted
by its national defence tasks and missions. Its strength and power should be
no more no less. And in no way, the bright intellects should involve
themselves with the war machine. After all, if they are really intellects
they never go for this, selling their soul to the ''satan'' profiteering on
making the hells on earth: inhumane wars and mass destruction.
azamat abdoullaev
PS: my remarks pertain to any DoD mixing the national defence with the
supralucrative bloodshed business.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randall R Schulz" <rschulz@sonic.net>
To: <standard-upper-ontology@IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 12:53 AM
Subject: Re: U.S. DoD WG expresses interest in upper ontologies
> On Thursday 20 March 2008 14:53, Azamat wrote:
>> Thursday, March 20, 2008 3:20 PM, Gian Piero Zarri wrote,
>> ''... given the conceptual differences among the "upper levels" of
>> models like DOLCE, CYC, Conceptual Graphs, SUMO, NKRL etc., the
>> search for a Standard Upper Ontology seems to me like the search for
>> some sort of ontological Holy Graal.''
>>
>> This doesn't make an argument. Try and find better one.
>>
>> Jim, I think the SUO WG should preclude any involvement with the U.S.
>> department of Defence as well as any other DODs. It must be nobler
>> way to get funding. regards,
>> azamat abdoullaev
>
> I sense you infer some sort of moral taint to the work if it is
> supported by the U.S. DoD. That does not really follow. (Is the
> Internet so tainted because it was solely funded through all its early
> years by ARPA / DARPA?) They are not commissioning work on arms. Nor
> will seeking support for the work of creating a generic upper ontology
> elsewhere preclude DoD or its suppliers from using the results of that
> work for purposes of which you don't approve.
>
> Randall Schulz