Re: SUO: Update on Negotiation Instead of Legislation
John,
One quick comment below:
At 05:22 PM 3/6/2002 -0500, John F. Sowa wrote:
[snip]
>BA> So, the question is: How is it that a process of negotiation arrives
> > at the relevant computation over these formal properties, where a
> > mapping to a third, well understood standard ontology cannot arrive at
> > the relevant computation over these properties?
>
>If you are a system integrator, the only ontology that is relevant to
>your needs is one that relates the outputs of one system to the inputs
>of another for the scope of the given domain of tasks.
>
>I won't deny that large ontologies such as Cyc or what SUMO is intended
>to become aren't useful. However, I would not want to adopt any of them
>as a standard. Instead, I would like to use them as resources, which
>are best taken in small doses. If and when OpenCyc becomes available,
>I would like to see a project that would tear it apart into smalller
>reusable modules that could be mixed and matched with modules taken from
>other projects, such as SUMO or IMPS or many other sources.
>
>I believe that approach is quite compatible with the way that you used
>Cyc as a resource from which you extracted a small subset that was
>suitable for your particular problem domain. In fact, I frequently cite
>your paper as an example of how a large ontology should be used:
>
> Peterson, Brian J., William A. Andersen, & Joshua Engel (1998)
> "Knowledge bus: generating application-focused databases from large
> ontologies," Proc. 5th KRDB Workshop, Seattle, WA.
>
>For a copy of that paper see the conference web site:
>
> http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-10/
I think you are confusing extraction for efficiency with extraction for
other reasons (or maybe we're each just seeing what we want to see in
Bill's paper!). Even if you have a single large standard you might extract
only the portion you care about for computational efficiency. That doesn't
mean that your information model disagrees with the remainder, as might be
the case if you had a lattice of possibly contradictory theories.
Adam
>John Sowa
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571