Re: SUO: Re: OpenCyc Motion Open for Discussions
Yes, but this could presumably be done after the starter document is
accepted as something to work on.
At 02:04 PM 4/10/2003 -0400, Mike Pool wrote:
>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>