RE: SUO: ELP's summary of MRW's standards experience
Hi John;
Please se below:
<snip>
> > MW: We don't have a standard database implementation.
> > It is a point for competitive advantage or different
> > approaches for different purposes. The rule is that the
> > physical model should support the conceptual data model.
>
> When you use logic, the differences between a relational DB
> and an OODB vanish. An ontology is a *conceptual model*,
> which should be neutral with respect to any *data model*.
[ELP] I might restate that as saying that an ontological model can
reconcile OODB's and RDB's. OODB logic is clearly different logical
language from RDB logic - with much overlap. But I suspect we are not
disagreeing here.
<snip>
> 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.
[ELP] I've found that John S. the consensus builder bends over backwards
to makes conciliatorily general technical statements for building
consensus. But I've also got the sense that the specific technical
opinions of John S. might be far from what could be wrongly interpreted
from his general consensus building statements.
Perhaps Doug is falling victim to this here.
> 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.
[ELP] I was told that OpenCyc was or is an ANSI draft standard for upper
ontologies. So if you really want to agree with him, it appears to me
that you need to view OpenCyc as at least a reasonable draft standard
for upper ontologies.
Also, I have no problem with Cyc-bashing if it is done in concrete
verifiable specifics. I think they would appreciate that kind of
feedback -- but one should warn them first or they might be quite
startled ;^) But if ontology is science as you say, and if you want to
be fair minded, which I fully believe you do, shouldn't your criticisms
reference specific axioms and make claims for which you have already
supplied concrete proofs.
This sort of exercise would be indistinguishable from the sort of
interchange that would be needed in the merging that you have advocated
and in the comment/revision period for a chosen start ontology that I
have advocated.
So fire away, nobody looses!
Best,
-Eric
<snip>