|To:||Ontology Summit 2012 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|From:||Amanda Vizedom <amanda.vizedom@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:34:39 -0500|
Larry Lefkowitz was on the call and chat for the first two sessions, and especially active in chat for Session 2. I don't think anyone from Cycorp attended Session 3. |
I agree with Peter that it seems too much, too late -- and not necessarily on topic -- to spend a whole track, or even a whole session, given the limited number, on Cyc. However, I'd like to suggest that it might be good to include a Cyc-based use case in Track 4.
As I see it, there are two very different types of use case to consider, here.
The first is along the lines that Mike suggested: Look at an example of the incorporation of Cyc into a larger system, e.g. the Cleveland Clinic case. I am sure there are many useful challenges, solutions, issues and lessons to be drawn from there.
The second involves looking at Cyc as a use case itself. It's often the case that when people say "Cyc" they mean the ontology, or the knowledge base, but of course Cyc is itself a system, and quite a complex one at that. It can be extendend, incorporated, taken partially, and/or connected to other components to form other systems with "Cyc Inside." And that's generally where the value is going to be. Nevertheless, it is quite a complex system on its own. There is "the ontology," (really, as Doug F. indicated, a complex system of ontologies, managed and related via the Microtheory construct). There is also the language, CycL, itself, and its implementation. There is the inference engine, with its own complexity of theorem prover, heuristic modules, and implemented strategies for choosing what to pursue when. There are a variety of interfaces. The ontology is constantly evolving, and there are components and subsystems dealing with truth maintenance, bookkeeping and provenance, traceability, testing, etc.
Many of these subsystems were well-established, any many continuing to be developed, when I started working on Cyc at 1998. One thing I am often struck by is that many of the issues that appear as new or emergent in semantic technologies now were already being addressed in thoughtful and sophisticated ways in the Cyc system then. Cyc still has challenges, of course, but there is much to learn from the many person years of experience, and multiple rounds of implementation, learning, and revision, done on many of these fronts.
There are also some technical folks at Cycorp with enough Systems Engineering background that they might be especially able to contribute to the summit topic. I recall the Robert Kahlert was always especially interested in what Systems Engineering methods and Ontology might, or ought to, have to contribute to one another.
Either way (that is, an application of Cyc or Cyc as a System), I think a Cyc-based use case would be good to include in Track 4. Two cents for the Track 4 champions to consider.
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 14:43, Obrst, Leo J. <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Actually, I think some of the Cyc folks are participating in this Summit.
_________________________________________________________________ Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/ Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012 Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Summit process [was- Re:[Big Systems and SE] summit session-03], AzamatAbdoullaev|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontology-summit] Track on Cyc?, Peter Yim|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontology-summit] Track on Cyc?, Obrst, Leo J.|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontology-summit] Track on Cyc?, Peter Yim|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|