Re: SUO: 21 May 2002 -- Unanswered Questions About SUMO Set Theory
On 5/21/02 14:17, "Adam Pease" <apease@ks.teknowledge.com> wrote:
>> It seems to be recognized by many people who have chosen to join this group
>> that SUMO, OpenCyc or any similar effort will not achieve (3).
>
> That's an odd "recognition" since it flies in the face of at least
> anecdotal evidence to the contrary. We've used both Cyc and SUMO to
> integrate existing applications. The Cyc integration tasks are described in
>
> Cohen, P., Schrag, R., Jones, E., Pease, A., Lin, A., Starr, B., Gunning,
> D., and Burke, M. (1998), The DARPA High Performance Knowledge Bases
> Project, AI Magazine, Vol. 19 No.4, Winter.
>
> <http://projects.teknowledge.com/HPKB/Publications/AImag.pdf>
>
> One might claim there's a better, or more efficient way to accomplish this,
> but not that SUMO or Cyc can't successfully be used for this task.
If you want anecdotal evidence then there is anecdotal evidence that Cyc has
not been successful at this task. If it were, the whole IT industry would
be lining up to buy Cyc software and consulting. This would be an unfair
point if Cyc hadn't been around for so long. Based on the fact that SUMO is
essentially a Cyc-like architecture, I don't expect any better outcome for
it.
> I think you may misunderstand the IEEE then. IEEE charters groups to
> achieve their PARs. This is not just a discussion group. If someone has a
> project they believe in and want to make it into a standards effort, they
> should do so, possibly by chartering a new IEEE group with a new PAR. For
> example, Jim Schoening was already involved in P1484, but didn't try to
> push an ontology standard in that group since that wasn't the charter of
> the group. Instead, he started a new group. Mike Gruninger didn't try to
> standardize KIF in this group, he's submitted a new work item for ANSI.
> This isn't about my approach or anyone else's. It's simply about following
> a normal standards process.
Correct - as far as it goes. However, I don't think there's anything in the
IEEE rules that allows *you* to arbitrate what is and is not in conformance
with the PAR. I, for one, do not believe that criticism, concisely,
politely, and fairly expressed, that a given proposed effort will not
achieve the goals of the PAR, ought to be beyond the purview of this group.
.bill