John,
One point: (01)
> If your only complaint is that Cyc is not open source,
> then you could suggest that the gov't buy Cyc and donate
> it to the world. That would be cheaper than starting
> a totally new program.
>
Not being fully public is not Cyc's only problem, but if it did become
public by that mechanism, I think it would have a dramatic effect on the
number of users, and help solve what other problems there are. That would
make it possible and desirable for many other groups to collaboratively
contribute to its improvement and create demonstration applications that
would encourage others to help improve it.
I just don't want to hold my breath until that happens. There are useful
things that can be done meanwhile. For one, much of the Longman vocabulary
is not explicitly represented in the public version of Cyc from which I am
currently taking components (0.78, OWL version). I don't want to use any
components that are not fully open (freely usable).
Do you really think that what Microsoft works on is a good measure of
what is worthwhile? (02)
Pat (03)
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc.
908-561-3416
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx (04)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 10:52 AM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] What is "understanding"
>
> Pat,
>
> I strongly endorse the idea of developing a library of domain
> ontologies that have proved to be useful, along the lines that
> are being proposed for the OOR. I believe that such an OOR
> would be a valuable step that could eventually evolve into
> something more complete, as further practical experience
> accumulates and more R & D is done.
>
> But the following task, depending on how you interpret it,
> is trivial, impossible, or in some vague intermediate stage:
>
> PC> That is why I think that getting some critical mass of users
> > to agree on a common foundation ontology is an urgent issue.
>
> The impossible task is to develop a formally defined upper level
> with every term specified by necessary and sufficient conditions.
> That goal has been attempted repeatedly since Aristotle. Kant
> tried and failed. Various 20th century philosophers, such as
> Carnap, Goodman, and others, tried and failed. Cyc has been the
> biggest attempt, but after 23 years and multimillions of dollars
> of investment, mostly by the US government, it still cannot
> support applications that can pay for its continuing R & D.
>
> Other groups have developed their own upper levels, and nobody
> who has an upper level shows any interest in adopting anyone
> else's. If Cyc hasn't accomplished this task in 23 years,
> what is the evidence that another 23 years with more millions
> of dollars would make much, if any improvement?
>
> At the other extreme is what lexicographers have been doing
> successfully for the past several centuries: develop lexicons
> and terminologies with loose definitions. Many broad-coverage
> resources and specialized terminologies have been available
> for years. The most widely used is WordNet. Aren't the 2000
> words of Longman's defining vocabulary already in WordNet?
> If any are missing, they could be added very quickly.
>
> As far as urgency goes, we have no agreement on what kind
> of agreement is required. Cyc has been trying to sell their
> approach to government and industry since 1984, some major
> corporations (including Microsoft, for a couple of years
> in the early '90s) bought into it, but none of them have
> found much, if anything useful to do with it.
>
> What evidence do you have that any other group would be
> able to do anything better, faster, or cheaper than Cyc?
>
> If your only complaint is that Cyc is not open source,
> then you could suggest that the gov't buy Cyc and donate
> it to the world. That would be cheaper than starting
> a totally new program.
>
> John
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|