DARPA Hints That Search Fails
February 11, 2014
One of my two or three readers sent me a link to “DARPA-BAA-14-21: Memex.” The item is interesting because it reaches back to the idea of Vannevar Bush, sidesteps the use of the word “Memex” by a search vendor once operating in the United Kingdom, and provides pretty clear proof that DARPA is not happy with search. You can dig into the details at https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=32c351ba7850360e140a29f363819052.
US government content has some interesting characteristics. One of the most interesting is that items like DARPA-BAA-14-21 appear without context. For example, there is not a hint, nary a whisper of In-Q-Tel’s investments in search and content processing. Years ago, I heard at an intel conference that In-Q-Tel funds promising companies but few of these deliver operational payoffs. You can see a list of In-Q-Tel investments at https://www.iqt.org/portfolio/. Some of these companies deliver darned interesting demonstration systems. Others have offered solutions that were eventually abandoned. Others are like Fourth of July fireworks; that is, the financial support and walk arounds provide the type of show that some decision makers perceive as progress and purposeful action.
The net net is that this DARPA item underscores that information retrieval system is not appropriate for the future needs of DARPA. For me, this is one indication that my assertion about the troubled state of information retrieval.
Perhaps the funding, the TREC tests, and the DARPA solicitation will yield a payoff for operational personnel. “Perhaps” is a bit soft even if the devalued dollars are real. Our research offers some interesting facts that finding information today is more difficult than it was five years ago.
Stephen E Arnold, February 11, 2014
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
