Re: SUO: Re: Industry takeover
Adam,
I agree that we need more data, and an excellent
source is OpenCyc.
> What did you think about my proposal to let the two
> groups of interested parties make progress without
> impediment from the other? Can we at least agree
> not to block each other, and reconvene at a later
> date when there may be more evidence for our
> respective positions?
There are three groups: SUMO, OpenCyc, and IFF.
This recent round of discussion was prompted by
the OpenCyc motion, followed by your motion,
followed by my motion to combine all three
into a single project.
The phrase "without impediment" is too negative.
I would much rather see something that says
the three groups agree to "help" one another,
not just to "avoid blocking" each other.
Perhaps it would be better to have a motion that
outlines a plan for getting from where we are to
where we would like to be. Following is a
first cut at a three-stage proposal:
Stage one. Three independent projects: SUMO,
OpenCyc, and IFF.
Stage two. Stock taking, analysis, and testing:
a) Study the commonalities and overlaps
between SUMO and OpenCyc and the
possible contribution of further
content from other sources.
b) Analysis of possible inconsistencies
in the various modules that make up
SUMO, OpenCyc, and other sources.
c) Development and testing of the IFF
theory and methodology on the modules
of SUMO, OpenCyc, and other sources.
Further refinement and clarification
of IFF and how it can assist in the
analysis, testing, and combination
of modules from various sources,
especially SUMO and IFF.
Stage three. Results:
a) A library of modules derived from SUMO,
OpenCyc, and/or other sources;
b) Organization of the library into a
generalization hierarchy (lattice),
certification of the consistency of each
individual module, statements of known
inconsistencies between modules, and
a history of testing of each module.
c) A methodology based on IFF and/or other
theoretical and computational techniques
that enables different modules to be
ordered within the generalization hierarchy,
combined with one another, tested for
consistency of each possible combination,
and accommodated to new modules derived
from independently developed sources.
This proposal allows changes in any or all of the
three starting projects. It doesn't commit to
a total adoption of everything from any one of them,
and it assumes that each contribution from any one
will have to survive the analysis and testing done
in stage 2. It also allows contributions from other
sources (including further work done by the same
people who initiated the first three projects).
John
PS: I'll be leaving on a trip tomorrow and won't
be back until the end of next week. I might have
a chance to check my email between now and then,
but I probably won't be able to say much on this
or other topics that might come up.