Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Wall Street Falling
Huh? An ontology is probably the *ultimate* propaganda, since it carries
with it all sorts of hidden agendas, memes, and philosophical nuggets. (01)
Behind our lack of Information Religion, there is a second failure which KM
fails to address, and that is personal communication. How many organizations
employ highly-skilled information technicians at their contact points
(usually called "receptionists")? No, they'll pour vast resources into CRM,
KM, and other acronym soups, but give a minimum wage receptionist training
in enunciation and listening? How about giving staff basic NLP skills? No
way. From that point, communicating can only get worse. (02)
Now you're also asking for a Productivity Religion in a work environment
which is almost universally abusive, dishonest, manipulative, and
You proceed to state that the only solution is SDS. If I understand
correctly, this is an old DOS program which has interested almost no one,
and is no longer available. In looking at the description of SDS, I see
ideas implemented by The Co-ordinator Version II, ECCO, InfoSelect, and
probably Lotus Notes. (04)
You further indicate that correct implementation requires skill, craft, and
training, three points which conveniently turn up as common excuses for
project failure. Oh, and staff must be trained in, remember, and
consistently act upon Eight Steps. That is, indeed, sounding like a
religion. And to get that religion, a special priesthood provides the means
of transformation, at a price. (05)
Sure enough, at http://www.welchco.com/03/00050/01/09/03/02/03/0309.HTM#4723
I find the statements: "Communication Metrics is on the frontier of new
management science to exploit the original idea of religion," and "The Bible
is therefore a powerful way to advance civilization." (06)
These no doubt derive from your personal religion, but here I'll trade your
charge of an oxymoron with my own. They vividly illustrate that your
Ontology is your Propaganda. (07)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rod Welch" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 7:12 PM
Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] Wall Street Falling (08)
> Not quite so fast. Ontology = propaganda, an oxymoron, impossible.
> These feelings reflect Eric's letter on 010916 saying that nobody can
> find anything using methods everybody likes that takes 20 minutes to
> Later, on 011003 Eric pointed out information overload paralyzes
> Connecting the dots, if nobody can find anything and productivity is
> paralyzed that adds up to too many people having too many problems
> using methods everybody likes that take 20 minutes to learn, as
> reported on 001207...
> Of course Wall Street is just a place where people trade for a piece
> of the American Dream that is actually located in Fresno, Tucson,
> Duluth, Macon, Portland and points in between, i.e., it is all of us.
> So the problems on Wall Street really begin at home starting out the
> day with a commitment to be productive, even if it takes more than 20
> minutes. If everyone is in meetings all day, on the cell phone and
> sending email, where can we get more than more than 20 minutes to
> learn how to save time and money for saving Wall Street?
> Ultimately, the issue comes down to paying the price for good
> management in order to avoid the cost of bad management?
> On to your question the other day about SDS. Sorry, not to have
> gotten back to you, but several other matters have crowded the
> calendar lately.
> Information on SDS is in the record on 940901....
> Implementation entails performing eight (8) steps that improve the
> ability to think, remember and communicate, as shown on 001219....
> Performing these steps requires skills to use SDS and to work with
> people and craft an effective record. Things like ontologies are not
> that easy to figure out, and are impossible to manage without SDS. Com
> Metrics provides the solution with a service to deliver intelligence
> anytime, anywhere, and train people to acquire skills that enable
> transformation from information technology to a culture of knowledge.
> Malcolm Dean wrote:
> > I agree. Ontology = Propaganda. The best tools are those which do not
> > anticipate any search ontology, such as InfoSelect, askSAM, and so far
> > understand it, Google.
> > A further problem is that our society is fundamentally against objective
> > information, legislating and bending information to personal, political,
> > religious, and corporate gain at every possible turn. In Gene
> > mythic history of Vulcan, he predicted that an advanced civilization
> > have to come to terms with the way its reacts to information, or
> > We have no "religion" (in the original sense of the word) of
> > This is why KM is failing, and the root cause of Wall Street's problems.
> > Malcolm Dean
> > Los Angeles
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Johannes Ernst" <email@example.com>
> > To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 4:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Semantic web meta data
> > > At 14:23 +0100 2002/08/05, Murray Altheim wrote:
> > >
> > > >What does anyone mean
> > > >when they say a word? How does anyone else interpret that word?
> > >
> > > Years ago, a fairly young Indian co-worker (went to college in US,
> > > but had very traditional parents back in India) confided in me that
> > > he had a major problem. His parents were a arranging a marriage for
> > > him in India, and he was horrified at the prospect of getting married
> > > to someone he had never seen and most likely wouldn't like. He asked
> > > me a variation of "shouldn't I be allowed to find a wife for myself,
> > > someone whom I love?"
> > >
> > > I asked him what response his parents would give to him when asked
> > > the same question, and he said it would be something like "you don't
> > > marry for love" and "if you want to have an affair with someone you
> > > love after you are married that would be fine." He was even more
> > > horrified at that idea.
> > >
> > > Obviously, he and his parents had very different interpretations of
> > > what the word "marriage" meant. (Note that this was not a language
> > > translation problem!) We then embarked on this modeling exercise,
> > > basically, trying to discern what the underlying concepts were, and
> > > what names different people would give to those concepts. And we
> > > discovered that what his parents would call "permanent girl-friend
> > > outside marriage" was much closer to his idea of marriage, while
> > > their idea of marriage was a concept he did not feel he could really
> > > understand.
> > >
> > > Global ontology? Maybe ... but it is much much harder than it is
> > > generally appreciated. Being an immigrant to the US, and not a native
> > > speaker, I'm close to deciding for myself that any form of language
> > > translation by anyone (and I'm not even talking about computers) is
> > > impossible (not "hard" -- impossible) because the underlying concepts
> > > don't really map. And if we can't do that very well, how can we
> > > construct a global ontology? I don't see how ... maybe 50 years from
> > > now, with the process being in step 7 after 20 years of trying, "and
> > > then, a miracle occurs" ;-) (09)