[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology vs KR

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 02:30:27 -0400
Message-id: <54377D03.7000706@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On 10/10/2014 12:53 AM, Patrick Cassidy wrote:
> SUMO was on a shoestring and that made it much too narrow,
> without verification in any application.    (01)

Cyc was supported with $100 million for 25 years (1984-2009).
Since 2004, there have been cutbacks in the research grants, but
they have been getting more funding for applications.  OpenCyc is
a large subset that is available for free download.    (02)

The Japanese EDR project (Electronic Dictionary Research) had been
funded with many billions of yen.  They defined several hundred
thousand concepts with mappings to both English and Japanese.
CSLI at Stanford got a free copy, because they had been collaborating
with the development.  But nobody at CSLI found anything useful to do
with it.    (03)

> The part that I don’t agree with is the implication that the “primitives”
> tactic has been tried .    (04)

People have been searching for primitives since Aristotle.    (05)

Anna Wierzbicka published her first version in 1972 and continued
to work with students and colleagues in extending them for over
30 years. For continuing developments by Cliff Goddard, see
http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/419064/Goddard_2010_OUP_Handbook_Ch18.pdf    (06)

John    (07)

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    (08)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>