Pat, (01)
when Cyc was initiated, there was no real Internet. Cyc
is supposed to contain common-sense knowledge, but there
is a lot more of this in the web. It feels obvious that
the web in general will be the source of common-sense
knowledge rather than Cyc, even though Cyc is used in
many projects. In this sense, the web as a whole is the
largest ontology ever built. Of course, I hope that people
would get the most out of Cyc. (02)
Do you think that Cyc will still exist in 50 years? (03)
Avril (04)
Lainaus Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>: (05)
> At 10:14 AM +0700 1/30/08, paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >Can Cyc be redesigned-reused?
> >
> >I mean an ontology is made of
> >knowledge (incl axioms)
> >represenation
> >formalization
> >
> >what part of Cyc makes it useless?
>
> It is not useless. It is probably the most highly used large ontology
> ever constructed, and is the only one that is a commercial success.
> OpenCyc, the free subset of Cyc, is used as a resource by hundreds of
> academic and commercial projects. Cyc is also many orders of
> magnitude larger than any other ontology.
>
> Although some early grandiose claims for the Cyc project (which were
> not taken seriously by anyone in the AI field) have not been bourne
> out, this does not invalidate its power or utility as an ontology.
>
> >What would be the best way to fix that?
>
> Cyc now represents approximately 200 man-years of effort. No other
> ontology or KR project comes even close to this scale. "Fixing" it,
> whatever that might mean, would require a similar scale of effort. No
> US government agency will subsidize such an effort, and I doubt if
> one could get EEC funding for it either.
>
> Pat
>
> >
> >
> >pdm
> >
> >On Jan 30, 2008 6:10 AM, Avril Styrman
> ><<mailto:Avril.Styrman@xxxxxxxxxxx>Avril.Styrman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >John and Azamat,
> >
> >comments below.
> >
> >Lainaus "John F. Sowa" <<mailto:sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> >> Azamat:
> >
> > > > What matters is the whole new idea of subjecting metaphysical
> >> > systems to axiomatization, the rigorous and systematic analysis
> >> > of a system from precise definitions, axioms and rules, what
> >> > Spinoza essayed in his philosophy.
> >>
> >> That is indeed an interesting idea. In mathematics, it has proved
> >> to be very valuable. But in the empirical sciences, even physics,
> >> it has had mixed results. Newton's achievements came from applying
> >> mathematical techniques to ideas that had been developed (with some
> >> use of mathematics) by Galileo and Kepler.
> >
> > > As far as formalizing metaphysics, it is safe to say that there are
> >> *no* major insights that have resulted from the formalization. It
> >> is true that formal axioms are important for computer applications,
> >> since computers, by themselves, have no intuitions whatever. But
> >> the real insights have come from people whose intuitions were at
> >> the level of Galileo, Faraday, and Einstein. There are no formal
> >> achievements that are remotely comparable to the work of Newton,
> >> Maxwell, or Minkowski. (But there are insights into metaphysics
> >> that result from mathematical studies in physics, but the insights
> >> originated in physics, not formal philosophy.)
> >>
> >> In summary, the attempts by Spinoza and Descartes to formalize
> >> metaphysics were interesting failures. Even as late as the 20th
> >> century, when modern logic became available, attempts such as
> >> Carnap's Logische Aufbau were also interesting failures. Carnap
> >> was a good logician with a strong background in physics and
> >> mathematics. But his attempt was a dead end. Nelson Goodman
> >> made another interesting attempt, which developed some useful
> >> mathematics, but no new insights into metaphysics.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > > Those of us who are working with logic and ontology hope that
> >> some kind of formalization will be useful for major applications.
> >> But so far, there have been *no* new insights into metaphysics that
> >> have come from the process of axiomatizing Cyc or any other formal
> >> system. On the contrary, the real insights have come from the same
> >> source as all the other insights since antiquity: dedicated study,
> >> observation, intuition, and discussion with teachers, students, and
> >> colleagues. The insights from formalization, if any, were modest
> >> at best.
> >
> >We have to separate two things:
> >
> > 1) formalization
> > 2) axiomatization
> >
> >To axiomatize something, does not mean that we have to impose
> >a horrible string of mathematical formulas upon it. In the
> >case of philosophical ontology (the best part of metaphysics),
> >plain text will do. Of course, some principles such as the
> >identity of indiscernibles and the indiscernibility of
> >identicals can be given in both ways, in text and in formulas,
> >and it helps understanding them. The act of axiomatization should
> >help understanding the subject, not to make it harder. Of course,
> >pictures and graphs help too.
> >
> >To be clear, to state something axiomatically is clear, simply
> >because othervise it could be unclear. Over-formalization is a
> >threat that has to be avoided. The clearest cases of
> >over-formalization are the those where the thing that is
> >to be formalized, is actually required to understand the
> >formalization itself! Examples of these are e.g Frege-Russell,
> >von Neumann, and Zermelo -definitions of natural numbers.
> >
> >Avril
> >
> >
> >
> >PS:
> >
> > > The largest of all attempts was the Cyc project, which many people
> >> in AI regard as a failure. Cyc has had some useful applications,
> >> but none of them have been sufficiently successful to pay for the
> >> many millions of dollars that were invested in the project.
> >
> >What good is it if you never use it?
> >What good is it if you don't shake it,
> >be careful baby now and don't you break it!
> >What good is it, if I can't put it on a piece of bread?
> >It ain't no good to nobody!
> >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Message Archives:
>
><http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> >Subscribe/Config:
>
><http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> >Unsubscribe:
>
>mailto:<mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Shared Files:
> <http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> >Community Wiki:
> <http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> >To Post:
> >mailto:<mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Paola Di Maio
> >School of IT
> ><http://www.mfu.ac.th>www.mfu.ac.th
> >*********************************************
> >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> >Subscribe/Config:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> >Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> >Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> >To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (07)
|