I agree with the idea of getting a testbed going with conventional
computers, and exploring options for other kinds of hardware as well,
perhaps in another testbed and with another vendor. This would minimize
initial costs and delays, and avoid a situation where "the perfect is the
enemy of the good".
Phil Jackson
-----Original Message-----
From: standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG [mailto:standard-upper-
ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Schoening, James R Mr CIV USA
AMC
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:15 PM
To: standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Cc: Jack Ring
Subject: RE: Recommending a Testbed Vendor
Jack,
Interesting. One approach might be to set up another testbed for
your ideas and link it to this testbed.
If this testbed succeeds and grows, I envision other testbeds
being set up for related purposes by other groups. If we break up the
different functions into components, a demonstration could access
different components in different testbeds.
Jim Schoening
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Ring [mailto:jring@amug.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 12:34 PM
To: Schoening, James R Mr CIV USA AMC;
standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: Recommending a Testbed Vendor
Why limit our thinking to solutions on stored program computers? Isn't
it clear by now that computers as we know them are the primary
obstruction to making sense out of data within the context of
multifaceted ontologies? How shall we experiment with FPGA and
transputer kinds of hardware? My lag in prompting topic P4 may be a
large part of this issue but I must speak up now even though my message
may not be meaningful to all.
We need a vendor who will be willing to install some non-cpu hardware in
the test bed.
Jack Ring