On Wednesday February 18 2009, Mitch Harris wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > Bear in mind that OWL isn't expressive enough to capture more than
> > a fraction of what is in OpenCyc.
>
> I don't know much about Cyc or OpenCyc...in what way is OpenCyc more
> expressive? Is it full FOL? (01)
It is FOL with various higher-order extensions such as the ability
quantifying over predicate and function names and a kind of
non-monotonic default logic. (02)
I worked with Cyc some back around 2000, and one of our criticisms (at
least back then) was that there was no clear statement, formal or
informal, of the logic, the model theory or the proof theory underlying
Cyc's inference mechanisms. I don't know if that's still true or not. (03)
Randall Schulz (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|