Re: SUO: 21 May 2002 -- Unanswered Questions About SUMO Set Theory
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 09:27:52PM +0200, Chris Partridge wrote:
>
> Can I support the point underlying Bill's comment that:
> >> 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).
>
> 3) The SUO will play the role of a neutral interchange format whereby
> owners of existing applications will be able to map existing data
> elements just once to a common ontology. This provides a degree of
> interoperability with other applications whose representations
> conform to SUO. This entails the SUO being able to be mapped to
> more restricted forms such as XML, database schema, or object
> oriented schema.
>
> As he says "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." Though I suspect the truth is a little more complicated -
> the basic point seems to me correct, and important to recognise.
>
> Application integration is currently a big headache for enterprises - with
> millions if not billions spent on it. Enterprises are eager for a solution,
> so if Cyc-type efforts were the solution then there should be some
> significant evidence that they are working - not just anecdotes. Presumably
> if SUMO is the answer, then corporations would already be using it to solve
> their problems, and asking for more. Note this is not to denigrate the work
> that has gone into SUMO, just the naive assumption that it will resolve the
> kind of problems noted in 3) above.
Chris, Bill et al.,
with all respect due to its proponents, this is a very odd argument
indeed. For one thing, it presupposes what has been long and often shown
to be an incorrect assumption, that is, that corporations, customers, etc.
(i) know what they "really need", and (ii) unfailingly recognize "it"
when they see it. You don't need to be a raving Troskyite (not that
there is necessarily anything wrong with that) to believe that (i) and
(ii) have been over and over empirically disconfirmed.
Moreover, it's obviously possible to conceive of other explanations of
the same fact: for instance, that "Cyc-type efforts" so far have not
really focussed on addressing primarily the "desperate needs" mentioned.
Usually people make the naive assumption that their efforts will solve a
problem they have identified, not one they have not clearly formulated.
The interesting question can then be raised about whether similar efforts
could be retooled and exploited to address such needs. Well, can they? I
for one would be most interested in hearing while either Cyc or SUMO or
IFF or... _cannot_ in your view be so retooled. This seems like a clear
question, both theoretical and practical, which many (though not I, sorry
to report) here seem well equipped to address, although not one that
benefits greatly from polling imaginary customers, or so I feel.
So let me try to reframe the issue: what is it about an ontology that
_would_ make it suitable to address these needs? And what is it with
existing ontologies that makes them unsuitable? I look forward to reading
your opinions.
regards,
--
- - - - * * * * * - - - - * * * * * - - - - * * * * * - - - -
Pierluigi Miraglia Cycorp, Inc.
Ontological Engineer 3721 Executive Center Dr.
(512) 514-2988 Austin, TX 78731