[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology

To: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Avril Styrman <Avril.Styrman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 16:46:09 +0200
Message-id: <1201877169.47a330b1d7394@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Quoting Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>:    (01)

> >A large number of simple "X is Y" NL sentences gives a quite
> >good approximation that "X is a subclass of Y"    (02)

> OK, if you believe this, find me some. Actual examples from the Web.    (03)

6 040  hits "tulip is a flower".
56 200 hits "flower is a plant".
plant > flover > tulip    (04)

In course of objectivity, we also get:    (05)

67 000 hits "plant is a flower"
4 100  hits "flower is a tulip"
tulip > flover > plant      (06)

The point is, that we do get all these very
easily, and after we have got them, we can 
reason about them based on their relations.     (07)

> >>  >PNL is a general scheme. It does not solve all the
> >>  >problems of AI, but it is a good suggestion of
> >>  >the general guidelines.
> >>
> >>  The general guidelines for solving all the problems of AI?? I'm
> >>  afraid I am simply laughing at this point.    (08)

General guidelines for building something that gives an
answer to your NL query. It is a general picture, and it 
is good to have a general picture. Then you can add 
specific components to it. Instead of saying it does not 
work, please give an alternative on the same level of 
abstraction.     (09)

> >The main point was the web is more
> >likely to be the repository of common sense than Cyc.
> This is false on many grounds. First, common sense is not commonly 
> written down, even in English. Some of it may *never* be written down 
> because we all learn it (or are born with it) before becoming 
> literate. Second, it is not currently or for the forseeable future 
> possible to extract meaning from free NL text without already having 
> a CYC-scale ontology to help one comprehend the NL sentences with. 
> Third, although there may indeed be a great deal of information on 
> the Web, there is no way to distinguish facts from opinion or sense 
> from nonsense, unless one already has a great deal of common sense 
> (more than many adult humans) to help one do the sorting out.    (010)

Imagine that you had the task to build a machine that passes the 
Turing-test. Suppose that you had 100 years to do this, and you had
100 experts working for you full-time. You would also have all the 
current equipment that you need. But you would have to manage with
either 1) Cyc as it is now, of with 2) Internet as it is now, without 
Cyc of course. Would you choose Cyc? If you did, your experts would 
be eventually typing the same common-sense knowledge that is 
already in the Internet. If you'd choose Interner, you wouldn't have
to type the common sense knowledge that is in Cyc. You'd possibbly
use an overall ontology that could in some respects be similar to the 
one i Cyc.     (011)

Avril    (012)

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    (013)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>