Wiki entry??? (01)
Patrick Cassidy wrote:
> Can you point me to an application of OpenCyc (one that I can view and
> test with a browser or test after downloading and installing for free) that
> gives a good example of interoperability among programs created by two or
> more separate development groups? Where can I find the translator that
> takes a KB developed using SUMO and translates it into OpenCyc assertions?
> Is there a web site where we can test out the Cyc language understanding
> function? Can we modify modules of that program to see if a different
> approach will result in superior performance? If a commercial company wants
> to use the Cyc reasoning engine can they do it without paying royalties? Is
> there a set of separately developed databases integrated via OpenCyc that
> can be globally queried by either a web browser, or by downloading and
> installing? Are there a collaborative open-source projects to create
> applications using OpenCyc, open to contributions from any interested party,
> with the results freely usable?
>> Under the circumstances, to
>> suggest spending millions of public dollars to re-create something
>> functionally indistinguishable from it seems quixotic at best, and
>> irresponsible at worst.
> If the existing OpenCyc cannot do all of the above (and it can't) then it is
> **not** "functionally indistinguishable" from the FO and associated programs
> that would result from this project. I know that the Cyc is technically
> *capable* of doing those things, if some open community of users were to
> adopt it for that purpose and put effort into developing it in that
> direction, but no such community now exists. I too have a copy of the full
> Cyc, but I have absolutely no incentive to try to develop any applications
> for it because I know that any interesting application would have to be
> developed by a rather large community of developers working together, and no
> such community now exists for Cyc as far as I can tell. Developing a modest
> application on my own would not in any way advance the goal of semantic
> interoperability. That is one of the lessons we should have learned from
> the experience of the past seven years, since the first OpenCyc became
> available. In the meantime, 700 billion dollars and counting of economic
> inefficiency are down the drain.
> If there is an open-source open-participation project using OpenCyc that is
> aimed at developing a language-understanding program, please point me to it.
> If not, please recognize and admit that there are things that an FO
> consortium could do that are not now being done, and are not likely to be
> done, by a group of Cyc users in the foreseeable future without funding of
> some project to that purpose.
>>> [PC] , and does not now advertise an ability to translate among
>> [PH] Fair enough. BUt if this is supposed to the raison d'etre for the FO,
>> then demonstration of how to achieve such translations and
>> interoperabilty in a few nontrivial cases would be a good place to
>> begin. We managed to do this in the IKRIS project, for example, to
>> limited but measurable extent. Cyc was one of the targets, in fact. I
>> bet that a well-designed and convincing proposal to achieve multi-path
>> interoperability between a large number (say, 20 or so ) existing
>> formalisms and ontologies and notations could in fact attract
>> substantial funding right now, as many government agencies have
>> identified this as a major problem area.
> If there is such a proposal in the works with the goal of creating
> open-source Cyc-powered programs open to participation from any source, it
> might be a good substitute for the FO project if it has a natural-language
> understanding component, and I would be happy to participate, but I am
> unaware of it. I have read at least some of the IKRIS reports, and know
> that you also have an interest in (and optimism about) enabling translation
> among alternative representations. So then why don't you organize such a
> project if it is likely to attract funding? I will be happy to help in any
> way I can.
> Given the large economic costs of the delay involved in taking a very slow
> incremental approach with many isolated projects, I think we should have
> some sense of urgency in organizing such an open collaborative project,
> whatever you call it. But the resulting products do need to be fully open
> source and easy to test by casual inspection, in order to encourage new
> users. Can you provide us with your counter-proposal?
> Patrick Cassidy
> MICRA, Inc.
> cell: 908-565-4053
> 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/
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 (03)