You conclusion "if it can't be done by the Cyc group, it can't be done by
anyone else" is absurd on its face. You have never yet produced a single
detailed example of something that Cyc tried to do and failed, with
specifics about the goal, effort expended, method used, and reason for
failure. Anything less is useless anecdotal stories from which we learn
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 12:24 AM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology
> Perhaps OpenCyc doesn't support all the software goodies you want.
> But it has an enormous advantage over FO: it exists!
> PC> 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?
> I don't know. But there is one thing that I do know for certain:
> There is *zero* evidence that FO can be used for any such thing.
> If Cyc or OpenCyc cannot be used to support interoperability,
> then that would make it extremely difficult to make any claims
> that some nonexistent FO that isn't even defined would be better.
> PC> 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?
> I don't know -- ask Lenat. But again, the answer for FO
> to every one of those question is "definitely not".
> Bottom line: If it hasn't yet been done with Cyc or OpenCyc, that
> is very strong evidence for *not* developing FO.
> 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 (05)