RE: SUO: 21 May 2002 -- Unanswered Questions About SUMO Set Theory
Pierluigi,
You wrote:
"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."
I am not sure that what Bill or I were assuming was "that corporations,
customers, etc. (i) know what they "really need" " in the sense you are
talking about. The corporations know they have a problem - they are not
stupid - and they know they really need a solution. What they do not know
yet is what that solution is - they know full well they have not yet found
what they "really need". If the amount of money spent on integration
projects is any indication - they regard it as a serious problem. As far as
I am aware it has been "empirically confirmed" that with serious problems of
this type, corporations are usually prepared to try solutions proposed to
them that can demonstrate that they work. And the proposition is that if
something like your employer (Cyc) has been reasonably visible for a while
and has tried to persuade corporations to use its product (which I
understand it has) then it cannot have demonstrated to their satisfaction
that it is the solution. The argument seems to me unimpeachable. BTW this is
not meant to denigrate Cyc - merely clarify what is not good for.
Is your underlying point that Cyc (or whatever) is the answer to 3)? That
this is obvious to you and the other initiates. And that for some reason the
large number of corporations with projects in this area do not 'get it'
despite the publicity that surrounds Cyc. And despite attempts by Cyc to
explain to them, and demonstrate, that it will work. This seems to me the
odd position. It also seems to me to underestimate the acumen of the large
number of people with considerable experience working in the area.
It is important to get this straight, because if we have the answer to this
problem then the issue is just a marketing one. If we do not, it becomes a
methodological one.
Regards,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: miraglia@cyc.com [mailto:miraglia@cyc.com]
Sent: 22 May 2002 20:06
To: Chris Partridge
Cc: Bill Andersen; Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
Subject: 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