On Sunday February 22 2009, John F. Sowa wrote:
> ...
>
> Another point: When Ontology Works got started, they used a
> large monolithic ontology. But as time went on, they discovered
> that it was more useful to break it up into smaller modules
> that are easier to "plug in" to various applications. (01)
One of my biggest problems with Cyc is its notion of "The Ontology." Not
only do they adopt this singular, all-encompassing ontology, but they
entirely centralize its storage at Cyc headquarters. Far flung
installations of Cyc still phone the mother ship with all additions
entered by external users and these additions are then subjected to
vetting at Cycorp. (*) (02)
Maybe ontologies are special things, but this sort of centralization
hasn't ever been a good idea in any kind of large-scale technology
development that I can think of. (03)
(*) Again, I point out that I last used Cyc as part of the HPKB and RKF
projects circa 2000, so maybe this has changed in the near decade that
has passed since then. (04)
> John (05)
Randall Schulz (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|