ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 20:28:59 +0000 (GMT)
Message-id: <630606.18859.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
1. I have found the glue:
 

Relations serve as the glue that forms concepts (like "Madonna" and "Singer") into statements (like "Madonna is a singer"). Relations are also used when connecting Cyc's knowledge to external knowledge sources, such as corporate databases and Web pages. Some relations connect statements to each other to form rules, such as "If a car was manufactured after 1995, then the car contains an air bag." Unlike other technologies that use a handful of relations, Cyc relies on an extensible set of thousands of relations. And Cyc's relations are themselves connected using relations, which provides (among other things) a kind of automatic learning. When you add the fact that an air bag is part of the safety subassembly of Car X, the KB automatically knows that Car X contains an air bag, that it contains all the parts that make up the air bag, that the air bag is inside Car X, etc. This happens as a result of the already established relationships connecting contains, parts and inside.


2 But the relations as examples above do not seem to be more but "contained in" or other spatially inclined relations. Mind you all relations may be regressed to size - equal/non equal
 
3. I am surprised that it looks to be an inventory of concepts and real things all mixed up showing a problem of not identifying denotatum and signs properly 
 
From: John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: [ontolog-forum] <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, 14 February, 2009 8:04:29 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic

Alex,

People have been trying to do that for a long time:

> it seems that "single universal ontology" for usual life should
> be more or less simple.  do we have one in formal form somewhere?

The biggest formal ontology for "commonsense" reasoning is Cyc:

    http://cyc.com/

They have been working on the project since 1984, and so far,
they have devoted more than 750 person-years of work to it.
If you have a few centuries of spare time, you could help them.

John



_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ 
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (01)

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