Just one clarification, and then I have to take a few
weeks breather from this thread. I find the discussion useful but right
now have a very full plate.
[AH] > 2) You have disparaged the results I showed you as
being not practical or too restricted or, to be honest, I don't understand your
criticism. The results are extensible. Maybe you don't see the implications of
No, I did not intend any disparagement at all. I think
that the work you are doing is very valuable, and it or something like it will
be needed in order to make the FO work. I am just suggesting that that
tactic *by itself* is not enough to efficiently support interoperability.
I know you differ on this, so we can just leave it as a difference of opinion
right now. I don’t think either of us can present examples of
applications that show how our different approaches actually support general
interoperability in practice.
[AH] > Perhaps you might point me to a
"practical" large scale FOL ontology that is actually being deployed?
As of now, of course Cyc is the biggest but the actual
applications using CYC are proprietary and not accessible to public
inspection. The fascinating SIRI system just released does use an ontology
to integrate its modules, but we don’t know the details of how the
ontology is used there. The ontology itself is presumably some variant of
the KM ontology developed by Porter, but I have no idea of what details they
use – internals of SIRI are proprietary, though the application can be
used on an iPhone. Interesting for me is that Porter also was concerned (at
one point – I don’t know about now) about semantic primitives, but
considered the Longman defining vocabulary and decided he didn’t need the
whole thing. His application goals were more limited, so that makes