Re: SUO: Some comments about Cyc
Leo,
I believe that Jim's two recent notes have answered this question
for both Cyc and IFF:
> One question we should have is: why hasn't Cycorp offered the Cyc upper
> as a candidate for SUO? I believe they were members of the pre-SUO upper
> standardization effort. Especially since OpenCyc will soon be available.
In one note, Jim said that Lenat has offered Cyc as a candidate
for an IEEE standard, but he has not offered either the time or
the money for anyone to serve as the "champion" or chief promoter.
In the other note, Jim said he is still looking for someone to serve
as the champion for IFF.
I have on several occasions asked Doug why hasn't he (and/or
any other Cyc employees) published any further details about Cyc
(other than the book by Lenat and Guha that came out in 1990).
The answer that I always received is that they are being paid to
develop the Cyc system and to provide services to their customers,
but no one is paying them to write papers. The 1990 book was
written as an MCC report on the progress achieved in the first
five years of Cyc (from 1984 to 1989). Guha's dissertation in 1991
was written for his PhD from Stanford. Other than those two major
reports, some manuals that are necessary for the users, some
occasional tech reports, and various short papers that read more
like "info-mercials" than publishable articles, there has been
a great dearth of Cyc publications.
From that evidence, I can only infer that Lenat and the Cyc
investors (most of whom are also Cyc employees) do not see any
"added value" coming out of publications, standards efforts,
or other non-funded activities. (Doug Lenat is cc'ed on this
note, and he can correct me if my inference is wrong.)
As for IFF, Robert Kent is the only person who knows enough about
it to champion it. He is apparently working on a revision of his
earlier IFF work. But I believe that he is doing this work on
his own without any further funding.
As far as I know, SUMO is progressing primarily because Teknowledge
is funding Ian to work on it. If we want anything else (or in
addition), someone would either have to fund it or find someone
with an independent income who could work on it without funding.
> By the way, many projects I have worked on in the past
> have used the Cyc upper (what else existed?), but filtered it
> substantially.
I would be very interested in hearing about any experiences you
or others have had with Cyc. I would also like to know what
you mean by "filtering it". If you could give some further info,
in any level of detail you feel appropriate for this group,
please do so.
John Sowa