Re: SUO: Re: OpenCyc Motion Open for Discussions
At 02:21 PM 4/9/2003 -0500, John De Oliveira wrote:
<snip>
>
>As for applications, if you're looking to make an objective
>evaluation, I believe you'd be better to start from scratch.
>Existing applications have been written with a particular
>ontology in mind. If you come up with your own application,
>you can try it against various ontologies. This could also
>avoid the problem of confusing the OpenCyc ontology
>with other things (e.g. inference engine) that come with
>the OpenCyc distribution. (Besides, we have yet to include
>much in the way of applications in the current beta release
>of OpenCyc.)
>
John,
Given the desire to distinguish the OpenCyc ontology from things like the inference engine or the software used to implement the ontology, would it make sense to vet the extant proposed ontology for vocabulary specific to inference and implementation? For instance, the proposed ontology includes terms like #$CanonicalizerDirectivePredicate, #$CycInferenceHeuristicPredicate, #$CoreImplementationConstant (and many of its instances bear consideration here as well), #$CycHLSupportDatastructure, #$CycInferenceProblemLinkStatus, #$argAdmittanceTestedDuringInference, etc. These don't seem like the kinds of concepts relevant to a IEEE standardized ontology.
best regards,
Mike Pool
>- John De Oliveira
>
<snip>