Re: Directions for SUO: monolithicity and Cyc
Roberto Bordogna wrote:
>I think that OpenCyc should joint the group. This should be in Cyc interest
>too, in my opinion (but many economists would agree about that), if the
>company really wants to create a world-class open standard.
I haven't seen what is in OpenCyc, but judging from the amount
of the Cyc upper level that they have already put on their
web site, I would bet that it would be overwhelmingly larger
than what is currently in the SUO merged ontology. The great
difference in size makes it unlcear who would be joining whom.
>In this case I still hope that a common core ontology (a "monolithic"
>subset) might be identified, suitable to (partially) support domain and/or
>expert specific ("non-monolithic") ontologies.
We are now in the position of the snake that has swallowed the
elephant. A lot of digesting must be done before the snake
is able to move. The first task is to analyze the current
Cyc upper ontology in order to decide what it means, whether
it is appropriate for our needs, and how it might be used.
John Sowa