Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

SUO: Cyc

Title:
John,
See comments below.

John F. Sowa wrote:
Dear Matthew and Eric,

I selected some excerpts from your recent exchange,
about which I'd like to add a few comments:
<snip>
  
[ELP]... The problem I see here is an unwillingness to do
the hard work of getting down to the bedrock so we can build
solid foundations....  That's why I'm suggesting starting
with an existing ontology.  

MW: Its really not far beneath our feet, and some is exposed.
The bits I've found are First Order Logic, Set Theory (ies),
Category Theory, Mereology, and you need to add a theory of
individuals. Mine is 4 dimensionalism. It says we exist in
a space-time manifold, we have temporal as well as spatial
parts, and if two things have the same spatiotemporal extent,
they are identical.
    

This is a good statement of a good starting point.  The main
problem with existing ontologies is that the main candidates
don't have solid foundations.  In fact, Doug Lenat is the first
to admit that the Cyc upper levels are not very important.  I
agree with him -- primarily because I think that the Cyc upper
level is a disaster zone and that a better foundation would
simplify much of the lower levels.
RGS:  I agree.  I have had a number of conversations with Doug (and Fritz) in the past about this subject.  Doug's basic position is that he would be happy to adopt  a standard upper level if
  1. It is well founded and well engineered
  2. It is not unreasonably expensive for Cyc to implement.
  3. It will enable Cyc to do non trivial things it currently cannot do - or cannot do without great difficulty.
This seems to me to be a very reasonable position - especially considering that Cyc is a business, not a research project.  Cyc has participated in standards activities in the past allowing Fritz  to participate in many committee meetings and attend the Heidelberg Conference.  These are not insignificant expenses for a small business.

Bob