Thank you John - very interesting. A perfect case for ontology to resolve
multiple similar standards with slightly differing implementations. I had
started talking with Mike Bergman About facilities in cyc and will need to look
at this schema and mull it over. Thanks John (01)
Deborah macpherson (02)
Sent from my iPhone (03)
On Oct 23, 2012, at 5:58 PM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: (04)
> On 10/23/2012 2:27 PM, Deborah MacPherson wrote:
>> Curious where this list of facilities came from and
>> how they came to be organized this way.
>
> I just selected a few random examples from the Schema.org hierarchy
> to illustrate the discussion:
>
> http://www.schema.org/docs/full.html
>
> This hierarchy was defined by the consortium founded by Google,
> Microsoft (Bing), and Yahoo.
>
> R. V. Guha was the person from Google who presented a talk on Schema.org
> in the Ontolog series. Guha had been the associate director of Cyc in
> the early 1990s. He co-authored the book on Cyc with Doug Lenat (1991).
>
> So Guha was certainly familiar with the methods used in Cyc, and he
> made some major contributions to them. In particular, Guha's PhD
> dissertation (for which John McCarthy was the thesis adviser and
> Ed Feigenbaum was on the committee) was about reorganizing the Cyc
> ontology in microtheories.
>
> Guha later went to Apple and then to Netscape, where he worked
> with Tim Bray to develop RDF. He also worked with Pat Hayes
> to define the logic base (LBase) for RDF. He worked at IBM
> research for a while in the early 2000s, and he is now at Google,
> where he is working on Schema.org.
>
> So I would assume that the current Schema.org hierarchy was at least
> influenced by Guha. I don't know all the reasons why he would have
> designed it that way, but I do know that one reason why Guha designed
> RDF is that he believed that Cyc was too complex. He didn't want to
> reject logic, but he wanted to find a simpler foundation that could
> grow into a richer system.
>
> And by the way, Guha said that he would have preferred LISP notation
> for representing triples instead of XML notation. That may be one
> reason why Google is emphasizing JSON for Schema.org -- JSON is
> basically LISP with square brackets and curly braces.
>
> John
>
> PS: If I were forced to bet on a W3C design vs a Google design
> as the likely direction for the future, I'd lean toward Google.
> But Google has quite a few abandoned designs on their garbage
> heap, and so does the W3C.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|