Well, you run into conflicts with the cake and eat it to problem. The huge
economic miracle of write once/ replicate anywhere in software is what brings
the price down worldwide (or should in competitive markets)- a similar but not
quite as magical effect takes place with chip manufacturing- hardware has been
more successful in driving prices down interesting enough, even though their
margins are not as high as SW. In that regard the first generation PC leaders
did provide great value, even if at times at other's expense. The trouble is
that this phenom conflicts directly with the need for differentiation- not just
in large organizations or even private sector, but most organizational types.
So then we have the argument on costs that if we had this huge semantic web
where everyone contributed content for free, or between partners, that those
users of that system would enjoy a vastly increased level of productivity. No
argument from me- we've been on that pulpit for a long time indeed- precisely
the case I made with the U.S. Gov in the katrina business case. In fact I have
zero doubt that such systems could also save large numbers of lives.
However, let's not ignore the key issue with adoption. The economic problem is
the alignment of interest challenge (which is similar to open source)- the
users are not necessarily of the same economic entity that must pay for the
development of the content (in this case we are talking about billions of $ in
R&D- not just blogs), the development of the ontologies, and who are then
expected to share. And public sources are not paying for the majority of the
content people need even if willing to share.
Given the complexity of the current business and revenue models in healthcare,
along with the vastly different IT systems along the chain (many specialists
don't even have networks they are such small businesses), it would seem that
the meritocracy issue if not the solution we propose would be of interest. I am
confident that eventually it will be, but in healthcare, government, and some
other sectors perhaps that component/module will only be of value in
conjunction with updating the archaic compensation schemes and revenue models.
For example, it took an act of congress for the first significant test of a
true merit system in the federal government (U.S.).
It's important to note however that we did not include meritocracy in our
holistic architecture due to our own activism or belief systems- rather it was
based on extensive research and testing on sharing knowledge within and across
organizations. Academia is far from perfect, but it does have a peer system of
sorts, which does favor publication and some sharing of knowledge. Most
cultures do not, even within a single organization just the opposite is the
case because our incentive systems are dysfunctional- which promotes less than
favorable cultures, and certainly the sharing publicly on the Internet has
proven to be only for the self destructive like myself and a few hundred
million others, apparently, who prop up the few who are compensated.
We've been on a long journey my friends, and we've taken up most of these
issues many times. We did not reach our conclusions easily, nor out of chance,
but rather with ears open to the truth within the realm of what's immediately
doable. I am confident that eventually the mainstream will come to similar
conclusions- we see pieces of it throughout R&D thought leaders in related
disciplines evolving, but it's not at all integrated well across disciplines.
Thanks Vipul for the interesting discussion. I hope you and your organization
will share some of your cases with us as these theories are field tested. We
are seeking the opportunity to do the same with our Kyield architecture.
Holistic systems are not for the faint of heart, but I'm confident that most of
the value lies therein. .02 - MM
----- Original Message -----
From: Kashyap, Vipul
To: Mark Montgomery ; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 6:55 PM
Subject: RE: Interesting Govt. Health IT Writeup on Web 3.0 (Semantic Web)
and Health IT
That's not too different from what most have been seeking for over a decade,
and what we and others are attempting to offer- the question is whether it can
be delivered, and if so by whom. A lot of organizations attempted same
previously, finding that they only increased and transferred costs as nothing
was replaced, and very few have found much flexibility yet in the entire IT
world. It isn't clear to me yet how ontologies achieve those goals- in fact
much like XML I see the potential for costs skyrocketing and if one is not
careful- an extension of the old extortion game in ESW.
[VK] I think the fundamental shift in this regard comes from carving out
portions of the application/business logic space and replacing them with
declarative constructs. For instance, decision support logic which
was hitherto viewed as software code written in java is now viewed as
declarative "content" that is externalized from the software. This is what
enables more efficient change management. The promise of semantic
technologies lies in coming up with specifications and tools to represent and
reason with this "content" decoupled from software development and deployment.
One reason, the value was nor realized earlier is
that an attempt was made to get software re-use and change.. Which is very
difficult to achieve.
In contrast, value is being sought in the context of information retrieval,
search, integration, etc. where the value exists but is difficult to
articulate. The change management value proposition is easier to see and
articulate. Besides, rule engines are currently deployed in quite a few
verticals and are already delivering value.
I certainly do see substantial potential in flexibility and change management
in this general area, and any organization with influence who embraces those
goals will have a positive impact throughout the ecosystem and beyond. Good to
see that organizational differentiation is finally becoming a priority, if
reports are true. The way we were headed previously was IT enabled
if-not-required universal mediocrity.
[VK] I think the above is a key point. SW technologies are not universally
applicable and have to be targeted to the appropriate use case to achieve the
value proposition.
Cheers,
---Vipul
----- Original Message -----
From: Kashyap, Vipul
To: Mark Montgomery ; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 12:51 PM
Subject: RE: Interesting Govt. Health IT Writeup on Web 3.0 (Semantic Web)
and Health IT
Mark,
It's interesting to see that even the traditionally risk averse healthcare
IT types are looking at Semantic Web technologies.
The key issue is that in the enterprise context, the value proposition is
very different . For instance, we are looking at
flexibility, maintenance, change management and cost reduction.
Cheers,
---Vipul
=======================================
Vipul Kashyap, Ph.D.
Senior Medical Informatician
Clinical Informatics R&D, Partners HealthCare System
Phone: (781)416-9254
Cell: (617)943-7120
http://www.partners.org/cird/AboutUs.asp?cBox=Staff&stAb=vik
To keep up you need the right answers; to get ahead you need the right
questions
---John Browning and Spencer Reiss, Wired 6.04.95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 3:45 PM
To: Kashyap, Vipul; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Subject: Re: Interesting Govt. Health IT Writeup on Web 3.0 (Semantic Web)
and Health IT
No doubt a great many people will be watching to see how well the early
adopting orgs' web 3.0/SW efforts go, particularly in health management.
Interesting discussion and differing perspectives on risk aversion and
embracing of innovation in large organizations:
++ Square Off: Most CIOs Deliver Business Value, Even If Housekeeping Is A
Bear
Toromont Industries CIO Mike Cuddy doesn't buy the claim that IT
departments aren't generating new ideas.
informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201002312
++ Square Off: IT Leaders Know Innovation Matters, They Just Can't
Execute
Gartner analyst Stephen Prentice says IT leaders are getting too bogged
down in me-too decision making at the expense of true innovation.
informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201002311
Mark Montgomery
CEO, Kyield
http://www.kyield.com
Managing Partner
Initium Venture Capital
http://www.initiumcapital.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Kashyap, Vipul
To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 9:08 AM
Subject: Interesting Govt. Health IT Writeup on Web 3.0 (Semantic Web)
and Health IT
http://www.govhealthit.com/article103153-07-16-07-Print
=======================================
Vipul Kashyap, Ph.D.
Senior Medical Informatician
Clinical Informatics R&D, Partners HealthCare System
Phone: (781)416-9254
Cell: (617)943-7120
http://www.partners.org/cird/AboutUs.asp?cBox=Staff&stAb=vik
To keep up you need the right answers; to get ahead you need the right
questions
---John Browning and Spencer Reiss, Wired 6.04.95
The information transmitted in this electronic communication is intended
only for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain
confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
prohibited. If you received this information in error, please contact the
Compliance HelpLine at 800-856-1983 and properly dispose of this information.
The information transmitted in this electronic communication is intended
only for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain
confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
prohibited. If you received this information in error, please contact the
Compliance HelpLine at 800-856-1983 and properly dispose of this information.
The information transmitted in this electronic communication is intended only
for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential
and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other
use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this
information in error, please contact the Compliance HelpLine at 800-856-1983
and properly dispose of this information.
