I hope we didn?t scare him off. It
sounds like he has a good project.
apprehension has good reasons. Today, in computing sciences and
informatics, Ontology (or ontologies) sounds as a fashionable trend. Any good
programmer is striving to develop his particular ontology, ontolgy of
girlfriends, ontology of enterprises, ontology of emotions and feelings,
ontology of real estate property, and now ontology of watches. This all
invokes what one great mind branded as ''foolish
the Search Engine for Ontology is the most challenging programming
project in our information and computing era. If you manage to build this
artifact tomorrow, you name will be in the history for ever. For you will
overthrow all established way of human living. At once, all the current Internet
meaningless search engines like Google, Yahoo, Ask Jeeves, Internet Explorer,
and what not, will become obsolete, and Adobe may become a trillion worth
company. But to do this legendary deed, you need just one thing: an
operative model of standard ontology for machines and humans.
repeat the same things, as John rightly noted, overcoming my aversion to
such things, I submitted the standard ontology project for a European
Research Council advanced grant, the 7th FP of the EU, seeking for
high-risk but high-impact projects.
research proposal will get 2,5 m euro, most of this sum will be directed to
building the Search Engine for Standard Ontology. Hope you can get
some funds from you company as well, tempting by the mind-boggling
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 12:14
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Search
engine for the ontology
hope we didn?t scare him off. It sounds like he has a good
On 27/02/08 2:05 PM, "Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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
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.
there was the HALO project, sponsored by Bill Gates's former
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
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
> 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.
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
deals with the real things in all their complexities.
evidence one thing: the formal logic KRR languages of the
paradigm are inefficient for building real computing
please find more convincing arguments against the standard
CYC and HALO. For
1. the first one is a massive mess of things, having
nothing to do with a
2. the second is just another
confusion, which quickly failed.
To be specific:
The Project Halo
was targeted to build a Digital Aristotle, a large
representation and reasoning system consisting of extensive
knowledge, organized as computer-readable rules, and an inference
managing those rules. But such a venture to create a
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.
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
intangible individuals that encompass time intervals,
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.
knowledge applications ask for the unified representation of the
whatever you like to name it, global ontology, standard
only for myself"
Senior Technical Evangelist - Adobe Systems, Inc.
Music - http://www.mix2r.com
My Band -
MAX 2008 - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2007/08/adobe-max-2008.html
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/