SUO: RE: RE: RE: A New Fundamentally Different Formal Motion
Please see below.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randall R Schulz [mailto:rschulz@sonic.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 4:10 PM
> To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: SUO: RE: RE: A New Fundamentally Different Formal Motion
>
>
> Eric,
>
> At 12:53 2003-06-11, Eric Peterson wrote:
> >Hi Randall;
> >
> >Please see below:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >
> > > It seems to me that what's needed is a way to experiment readily
with
> > > different axiomatizations, not just talk about them. If Cyc's
logic
> > > were better specified, it would constitute a platform for such an
> > > experimental effort, but since it differs so widely and
unspecifiedly
> > > from FOL or any other well-defined logic, it's value in
experimental
> > > ontology design is limited as well.
> >
> >[ELP] Cyc is not on the table for discussion. OpenCyc is. I haven't
> >bumped into any higher ordered axioms in the OpenCyc knowledge base.
>
> They are part and parcel of Cyc--through and through. And OpenCyc is
> just Cyc with a pared-down knowledge base. The logic, inference engine
> and so-called "upper" ontology is the same.
[ELP] Then surely you can surely you can point us to one. If not,
perhaps you should take less offense when someone calls you on what I
will kindly call irresponsible criticism.
Please be aware that OpenCyc doesn't have scads of the HPKB axioms.
>
>
> >Is anybody aware of anything in OpenCyc that is anything but a
> >syntactic variant of FOL?
>
> Temporal logics.
[ELP] How does the use of the holdsIn predicate (the chief temporal
workhorse in Cyc) require quantifications over a function or variable?
BTW, holdsIn is not even in Opencyc. I've never heard anyone link
temporal reasoning with higher order logic.
> Default logics.
[ELP] So what. It's all in the engine.
> Axiom schemas.
[ELP] I use macros in "C" and "Lisp" and don't take a bath afterwards.
Axioms schemas spit out axioms. Help me see what I am missing.
> Lots of quantification
> over functions and predicates.
[ELP] Show me one instance of such quantification in OpenCyc and I will
give you a public groveling apology posted to this group entitled "My
contrite apology to Randall Schulz. There will be no irony, sarcasm,
etc.
>
>
> >-Eric
> >
> >P.S. I think you would be hard pressed to back up your claims against
> >the Cyc logic. I had to look hard to find higher order axioms and
found
> >few. I just avoid using them and do fine. They didn't at all appear
to
> >be entrenched in the code. But I think you are mixing up their
> >inference methods with their axioms.
>
> Their axioms have no meaning independent of a Cyc server.
[ELP] Then, with that type of reasoning your email has no meaning unless
I parse it with your mind?
Please pick your favorite OpenCyc axiom and demonstrate how it has no
meaning without their engine. I'm asking for one single case. The same
public apology offer applies.
> Only with a
> Cyc inference processor can they be used to support inference as
> intended by their authors.
[ELP] I've worked directly with a couple of former Cyclists. I'll get
you their email address and you can sort out with them which one of
their axioms require the Cyc engine to give life to their pure intent.
I'm not joking. I will set something up.
Do you really think they would agree with you. They are certainly the
judges of their intent.
>
> >Default logic is their default for certain types of axioms and they
> >use something more exotic than negation as failure.
>
> No. Cyc's own default logic is the default unless you assert an axiom
> in monotonic mode.
[ELP] I though that's essentially what I said. But I'm not the ultimate
bastion of clarity ;^)
>
>
> >But we are in the axiom business here.
>
> This is my point. Just pulling things out of your mind as
> axiomatizations without testing has no hope of succeeding beyond
> tightly circumscribed contexts. It's just as with conventional
> programming: The artifact must be subject to testing before one knows
> if it works correctly (i.e., as intended) or not.
[ELP] I think we need to test whatever we adopt. But you as an HPKB
participant should know that HPKB-Cyc axioms were run on a number of
engines.
>
>
> >Have you ever used it?
>
> Yes, I have. I have taken Cycorp's training and have used Cyc for what
> I suppose passes for real-world knowledge engineering work: HPKB.
[ELP] Then you should know better.
>
>
> >Your criticisms smack of the attenuated reliability of multiple
> >hearings and retellings and little to no verification.
>
> I resent that.
[ELP] Successfully take up one of the simple challenges I set for you
and you will show some evidence that you are not just parroting
something you heard and can't back up. And you will have my sincere
apology.
>
>
> >I assume that such attenuation is one of the important reasons that
> >hearsay isn't allowed in the courtroom.
>
> Have you used Cyc to do knowledge engineering? Not just as a
repository
> for you axiomatizations, but to produce functional inference-based
> programs?
[ELP] Sure, and I've even done it on non-DARPA DoD money.
I've tied together a legacy simulation system in "C" with the HPKB-Cyc
axioms running in Loom using OKBC for connectivity.
I extended extending HPKB-Cyc axioms using the Cyc inferencing for a
Java/JAT-lite decision support agent community.
...to name a couple.
>
>
> Randy
[ELP] I'll draft a default apology from you to Cycorp if you like.
-Eric