|
At 10:27 AM +0200 1/30/08, Avril Styrman wrote:
Pat,
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.
Not in machine-usable form. And Im not sure that a lot of it is
there even in human-readable form. The whole point of 'common sense'
is that it is rarely articulated or written down , precisely because
it is the information that everyone assumes they have in common.
It feels obvious that
the web in general will be the source of common-sense
knowledge rather than Cyc
That is not at all obvious to me. I don't know of any reliable
source of common-sense knowledge on the Web, or of any plans to put
any of it there (except maybe some of the 'upper ontology' efforts:
but these will omit large amounts of knowledge, which is at 'lower'
levels.).
, even though Cyc is used in
many projects. In this sense, the web as a whole is the
largest ontology ever built.
But the Web isnt an ontology. Maybe the Semantic Web can
be viewed as one large ontology, to be sure, and maybe it will evolve
into a kind of super-Cyc. But Cyc (at least open Cyc) is already part
of the SWeb, and is itself being incorporated into new standards like
XMD. So I doubt even more that the arrival of the Semantic Web will
replace Cyc: it is more likely to amount to a kind of giant
extension of Cyc.
Of course, I hope that people
would get the most out of Cyc.
Do you think that Cyc will still exist in 50 years?
The ontology will. I have no idea if the corporation will.
Pat
Avril
Lainaus Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>:
> 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@helsinki.fi> 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@ontolog.cim3.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >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
>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
_________________________________________________________________
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 (01)
|