[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Search engine for the ontology

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:05:47 +0200
Message-id: <005701c8798c$e8466910$010aa8c0@homepc>

> Azamat,
> That property is only true of toy ontologies that are unable
> to deal with problems that anyone would actually pay to solve:
> AA> The uniqueness of ontology is that it is a single concept
> > scheme uniformly covering all things in the world.
> Cyc is the largest formal ontology that has ever been implemented,
> and after the first five years (from 1984 to 1989), they had to
> supplement their uniform upper-level ontology with a large and
> growing number of "microtheories" for the various specializations.
> After 20 years (around 2004), they had defined an ontology with
> about 600,000 categories, 2 million axioms, and 6,000 microtheories.
> Then there was the HALO project, sponsored by Bill Gates's former
> buddy, Paul Allen.  For that project, three groups -- Cycorp,
> OntoPrise, and SRI International -- were given the task of
> representing some pages from a chemistry textbook in their
> favorite notation and solving some problems that would be
> typical of a college freshman course in chemistry.
> Despite the fact that Cyc had a much larger knowledge base than
> the other two groups, it did not help them.  The average cost
> for all three groups to translate the text into their notation
> was about the same -- $10,000 per page.  The average score on
> the exam was about 40% to 47% correct, and Cyc had the lowest
> score.
> If anyone else has any further information about any large
> uniform knowledge representation that has been more successful,
> I would be delighted to hear about it.
> John    (01)

John,    (02)

I just wonder how different might be human minds constructed. I inclined to 
think that the toy ontologies are domain ontologies, while the global master 
ontology deals with the real things in all their complexities.    (03)

Your examples evidence one thing: the formal logic KRR languages of the 
classical AI paradigm are inefficient for building real computing 
applications. So please find more convincing arguments against the standard 
ontology than CYC and HALO. For
1. the first one is a massive mess of things, having nothing to do with a 
genuine ontology.
2. the second is just another confusion, which quickly failed.    (04)

To be specific:
The Project Halo was targeted to build a Digital Aristotle, a large 
knowledge representation and reasoning system consisting of extensive world 
knowledge, organized as computer-readable rules, and an inference engine for 
managing those rules. But such a venture to create a question-answering 
knowledge application driven by upper level descriptive taxonomies and 
logic-based knowledge representation and reasoning technologies was doomed 
to failure. First of all, because of the critical deficiency of the unified 
representation of the world consistently and uniformly organizing the 
classes of things with their relationships. Just imagine how one can 
construct without a uniform ontology an educational dialogue system with 
broad scientific knowledge and deep causal reasoning.    (05)

Now look at the CYC upper level ontology. It allows some hybrid thing named 
'a partially intangible' thing, a hybrid of abstract, notional, intangible 
and concrete, physical, tangible. As the instances of individuals, along 
with the physical objects named spatial and temporal things, we meet here 
the so-called intangible individuals that encompass time intervals, 
attribute values, and mathematical objects as relations, as well as 
situations and events. Only sets and collections are admitted as purely 
mathematical things. And many other strange things.    (06)

Summing up:    (07)

Real world knowledge applications ask for the unified representation of the 
world, whatever you like to name it, global ontology, standard ontology, 
etc.    (08)

azamat abdoullaev    (09)

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    (010)

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