Re: SUO: Program Semantics
Bill and Leo,
Let me try again to clarify three fundamental points:
First, the issues of knowledge soup are *not* limited to AI, natural
language processing, ontology, database, philosophy, psychology,
business, engineering, politics, law, entertainment, or the arts.
Instead, they are fundamental to any and every attempt to use any
symbolic system to communicate between any kind of agents: humans,
animals, computers, or extraterrestrials in any kind of language,
logic, programming language, notation, or chicken scratching.
Second, the issue of whether the ontology should be monolithic or
open ended is not a debatable issue. There only two sides to this
question: the right one and the one held by those who are looking
out their mouths (because that's how far up their esophagus their
heads happen to be).
Third, I am not trying to play academic one-upmanship. I am not
claiming that I discovered these issues, since they were perfectly
well known to Wittgenstein 70 years ago, to Peirce 100 years ago,
and to countless other sages through the centuries. All that I am
trying to do is to point out the obvious and to beg people who don't
yet recognize the obvious to look and think.
A few comments on selected bits and pieces from your recent notes:
JS> I think that we are very close to agreement. The major obstacle
> now is the SUMO group, which has been ignoring the evidence.
BA> John, let them!!! It's not just their party - it's everyone's!!
I am worried about SUMO because some people are pushing very hard to
get it rammed through as a standard that has the blessing of the IEEE.
That is why I have been trying to get people to recognize the need to
get SUMO, OpenCyc, and IFF working together on common goals.
BA> Actually, I think I failed to address this point in my last post.
> There is a lot of talk about AI on this list. But I'm not so sure
> that AI has much relevance here.
I wasn't talking about AI, but about the issues relevant to ontology.
And, for better or worse, ontology, by its very nature, has tentacles
that stretch out into everything that exists, everything that we can
ever talk about, and everything that we can ever reason about.
LO> Cyc would have been years ahead if it just pursued a FOL agenda at
> inception. Many of us knew/know that. And suggested that then. We and
> you told them so. But the important point is that they came around.
> So this is just old "I told you so"itis.
Indeed it is. I was just rehasing that bit of history in order to
get the SUMO and RDF people to recognize that they are just redoing
what Cyc has been doing for the past 18 years and will undoubtedly
continue to do for the next 18+ years if the government keeps
shoveling research grants at them.
John Sowa