The Knowledge Management & Business Argument for (OWA) Open World Assumption #semantic


Steve Ardire <sardire@...>
 

The Open World Assumption: Elephant in the Room
http://www.mkbergman.com/852/the-open-world-assumption-elephant-in-the-room/
OWA Enables Incremental, Low-risk Wins for the Semantic Enterprise

Steve Ardire
sardire@...
360-868-4435 ( Google Voice # )
http://www.linkedin.com/in/sardire
skype: sardire / twitter: @sardire



Tom <tman9999@...>
 

Great stuff! I wish this were written in a slightly less technical manner so I could better understand the basic principles. I found myself getting tangled up trying to parse terminology like Monotonic Logic and definitional statements like: "The hypotheses of any derived fact may be freely extended with additional assumptions."

Either less terminology or more examples would make this even better (I'm not a techie).

Secondly, this seems quite reminiscent of Rick Wallace's recent KM Call, where he described the Grounded Theory research method. If I understand OWA correctly, it seems to me it could be considered a Grounded Theory approach. Anyone care to comment on that?

-Tom Short

--- In sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com, Steve Ardire <sardire@...> wrote:

*The Open World Assumption: Elephant in the Room*
http://www.mkbergman.com/852/the-open-world-assumption-elephant-in-the-room/
OWA Enables Incremental, Low-risk Wins for the Semantic Enterprise*

*Steve Ardire
sardire@...
360-868-4435 ( Google Voice # )
http://www.linkedin.com/in/sardire
skype: sardire / twitter: @sardire


Steve Ardire <sardire@...>
 

Hi Tom,

Thx for your comment. Yes it's not an easy subject matter to discuss without referring to technical jargon and examples will definitely help elucidate so stay tuned.... I was not on Rick Wallace's call so cannot comment on his Grounded Theory approach.

If you'd like to discuss further ping me.

BR....Steve
sardire@...


On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Tom <tman9999@...> wrote:
 

Great stuff! I wish this were written in a slightly less technical manner so I could better understand the basic principles. I found myself getting tangled up trying to parse terminology like Monotonic Logic and definitional statements like: "The hypotheses of any derived fact may be freely extended with additional assumptions."

Either less terminology or more examples would make this even better (I'm not a techie).

Secondly, this seems quite reminiscent of Rick Wallace's recent KM Call, where he described the Grounded Theory research method. If I understand OWA correctly, it seems to me it could be considered a Grounded Theory approach. Anyone care to comment on that?

-Tom Short

--- In sikmleaders@..., Steve Ardire wrote:
>
> *The Open World Assumption: Elephant in the Room*


> http://www.mkbergman.com/852/the-open-world-assumption-elephant-in-the-room/
> OWA Enables Incremental, Low-risk Wins for the Semantic Enterprise*
>
> *Steve Ardire
> sardire@...

> 360-868-4435 ( Google Voice # )
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/sardire
> skype: sardire / twitter: @sardire
>