[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Web shortcomings [was Re: ANN: GoodRelation

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Patrick Cassidy" <pat@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 03:13:27 -0400
Message-id: <02a901c90294$3e11d060$ba357120$@com>
   One thing we learned from the Cyc project (and also from SUMO) is that an
ontology developed by one group will have great difficulty gaining adoption
by those who did not participate in its creation.  Cyc had the additional
disadvantage of being proprietary for its first 15 years (i.e. **not open**)
and is still partly proprietary.  We should learn from our mistakes, no?  We
know now that single-group ontologies gain few users.  So now it is time to
build a foundation ontology from the efforts of a large number of groups.
That is a ***very*** different thing from the Cyc project, even if the
ontology winds up having a lot in common with Cyc.    (01)

Pat    (02)

Patrick Cassidy
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx    (03)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 1:56 AM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Web shortcomings [was Re: ANN:
> GoodRelations - The Web Ontology for E-Commerce]
> Ron and Pat,
> Governments and large corporations often have design competitions,
> which sometimes produce very good products.  The only difference
> between a design competition and a free market competition is
> whether the choice of winner is made by a committee or by the
> customers.  Over the long run, I'd trust customers who have full
> and fair access to all the information.  Unfortunately, in the
> short run, the winner tends to be the one with the best sales team,
> not the best engineering team.
> RW> If we could identify the little groups that are going to produce
>  > the key ontologies, it would be easy to say "put them in charge
>  > of ontology now and save all the waste involved in an evolutionary
>  > survival of the fittest process".
> The total amount of money spent on Cyc was over $70 million, mostly
> from the U.S. gov't, but some from large corporations.  I think that
> the money might have been divided up more effectively in a series
> of design competitions.
> PC> I have no idea what you think is impossible for arithmetic,
>  > but lots of people have been using arithmetic for very practical
>  > applications for millennia...
> Yes.  For simple functions that can be defined in terms of the
> "foundational ontology" of +, -, *, and /, people use closed-form
> definitions.  But for most functions, closed-form definitions are
> not possible or practical.  They require implicit definitions in
> terms of axioms, not closed-form definitions.  If you use axioms,
> there is no need for any "foundational" terms.  That is what I
> meant by saying that the ideal number of foundational terms is
> either 0 or infinity.
> PC> and if we can get a foundation ontology that works as well
>  > for database interoperability we will be very far ahead of
>  > where we are now.
> Nothing will work as well as arithmetic other than another
> simple mathematical system.  And it's not at all clear how
> "far ahead" a foundational ontology will get us.  Remember
> that Cyc with its 2 million axioms has not been able to pay
> for itself by supporting applications to database design,
> knowledge base design, or any other profitable endeavor.
> PC> The magnitude of the interoperability problem is so large
>  > that the government should be funding *every* plausible project
>  > to solve it.
> Perhaps.  But the gov't funded Cyc for the past 24 years.  It
> seemed to be plausible, but it hasn't provided any ROI.  Many
> other proposals don't feel or smell much different from Cyc.
> Why would the gov't funders consider them plausible?
> RW> What if a Chinese group gets more industry support than the
>  > American team; should the US government cut the funding to the
>  > US group.
> Funny you should say that.  In 1980, the Japanese funded a major
> leap forward called "The Fifth Generation".  That was a time when
> Japanese cars and other technology were beginning to take over
> the U.S. markets.  And the Japanese were talking about making
> great new progress with artificial intelligence hardware and
> software.  That stimulated a great deal of investment in AI
> projects in the US and Europe -- Cyc, among others, was one of
> the US projects.
> In 1987, I participated in a Japan-US AI Symposium that was
> hosted by the Japanese 5th Generation project.  In short, we
> felt sorry for them.  They had built some nice hardware that
> was good by 1980 standards, but the microprocessor technology
> had progressed so rapidly that the Japanese special-purpose
> hardware was much more expensive and not much faster than you
> could get by just putting together a few much cheaper chips.
> But there were some good talks at the symposium, and I got
> a nice tie-tack that says "5th Generation".
> RW> I guess that I have more faith in "socialized medicine"
>  > than "socialized ontology".
> Me too.  Every industrialized country except the US has socialized
> medicine, and their people are healthier.  But socialized ontology,
> so far at least, has not made anybody richer, happier, or healthier.
> RW> Would $1,000,000 get a complete ontology for the petrochemical
>  > industry?  A small fraction of what they have spent on lobbying
>  > for drilling in the US continental shelf.
> You can get quite far with a much simpler ontology.  See the oil
> and gas exploration example in slides 26 to 37 of the following:
>     http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/pursuing.pdf
> Two guys from EGI (Energy and Geoscience Institute at the University
> of Utah) visited us at VivoMind on a Monday.  We ran their 79
> documents through our system with our plain vanilla ontology, but
> the answers to the queries were not well focused.  So we produced
> a list of all the terms that weren't in our dictionary (such as
> 'turbidic mudstones'), and I showed them how to group them in
> rough categories, such as Rock, RockFormation, GeologicalStratum,
> TimePeriod, etc.  On Friday, we ran the same 79 documents and
> queries, and the results were spectacularly better.  They spent
> a couple more weeks to produce the ontology that was used in the
> screenshots on those slides.
> I believe that we can get a lot out of ontology, but I don't believe
> that we should repeat what Cyc did over the last 24 years.  It's
> important to study Cyc in order to know what was good, what was
> mediocre, and what could be done better in some other way.
> John Sowa
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>     (04)

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)

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