SUO: Re: Industry takeover
John,
At 03:57 PM 4/29/2003 -0400, John F. Sowa wrote:
>Adam,
>
>I agree that we are at an impasse:
>
> > I'm afraid I disagree and I feel like
> > we're at an impasse again. I keep asking for
> > concrete examples, proofs in logic, or some
> > evidence and you respond with English discussion.
>
>What you are asking for comes at the end of
>a project, not at the beginning. You are asking
>us to accept your faith in SUMO, which is supported
>only by some vague notion (expressed in English)
>that it might be useful for some commercial
>applications. We have no proof of that claim.
On the contrary. The claim of the value of an upper ontology is not part
of the debate. To create one is the charter of the group, and that charter
is not exclusive to commercial applications. The only issue is which one
(or several) to settle on.
> > What are the claims you feel that have been made
> > about SUMO that you feel have not been justified?
> > I'd be happy to respond and maybe the Cycorp folks
> > could respond to any questions you have about Cyc.
You stated that claims had been made about SUMO but not backed up. I don't
recall making any claims in line with #1 or #2 below.
I have made claims with regard to #3. If you look at the last several
versions of SUMO you'll notice that several axioms were altered with the
comment that the changes were motivated by contradictions found in formal
theorem proving. I'd be happy to provide those proofs of inconsistencies
that were subsequently fixed.
>Following are some questions that I would like to
>have answered about any proposed upper-level ontology:
>
>1. Has it been implemented and used successfully in
> applications that are deployed and in continuous
> use (i.e., not merely research projects)? For how
> long? Has it made (or saved) money for the companies
> or agencies that use it? How much?
>
>2. How has it been used in conjunction with other
> ontologies (including terminological ontologies
> such as WordNet, Mesh, UMLS, etc.)? In research
> projects or in deployed applications in continuous
> use? How have the categories of other ontologies
> been mapped to it? Was the mapping proved consistent?
>
>3. Is there a proof of the consistency of the ontology
> as a whole (i.e. by a theorem prover that would
> have been able to detect an inconsistency, but
> terminated in a finite time without detecting any)?
>
>These are questions I would like to see answered for
>both OpenCyc and SUMO.
>
>There are other claims that I also find incredulous,
>such as the notion that a monolithic ontology is
>desirable.
I don't recall that claim being made. In fact, SUMO is divided into 11
modules.
> Cyc gave up that idea a dozen years ago,
>but it has still been claimed as a desirable goal for SUMO.
It is not.
>And finally, I see no justification for not collaborating
>with OpenCyc and IFF. If you want to have total control
>over SUMO as an independent project, then do it yourself
>at Teknowledge. If you don't want to collaborate, then
>don't ask a committee to rubber-stamp your project.
This is merely invective. No one is asking for a rubber stamp, and we've
provided numerous paper references on our web site as at least some
substantial evidence of collaboration.
Adam
>John
>