RE: SUO: ELP's summary of MRW's standards experience

["Eric Peterson" <epeterson@CCAAVA.com>]

<snip>
.
> 
> >People can learn from their own mistake, although not always. It is
> harder
> to
> >learn from the mistakes of the other. Especially when you don't know
what
> they
> 
> >are.
> 
> Right.  That's why I promise to itemize, analyze, and
> criticize their mistakes in my forthcoming report.
> 
> John

[ELP] I went to a AAAI tutorial on knowledge sharing several years ago
where the really big name presenter showed a bunch of slides on
relational query optimization - which was one of his big specialties.

My point here is that we all are pressed with the temptation to show
existing less relevant stuff rather than taking the time and care to be
on point.

I just want to make the point that until full Cyc is made public, it and
criticisms about it are only of attenuated relevance to any discussions
of this work group.

I want to make sure that we are properly focused on the fact that
OpenCyc is the only directly relevant Cycorp artifact on the table for
discussion.

The preceding admonition may not apply to you, but I respectfully ask
you to - rather than citing papers critical of Cyc - cite some small
number of axiomatic criticisms within those papers that clearly and
demonstrably apply to OpenCyc.  Three axioms per source would be a great
start and would give us some grounded confidence that you have the right
to cite these papers in the SUO context.

I don't think waiting 'till later is at all acceptable when you are
using your non-specific Cyc criticisms to sway SUO policy in the mean
time.

I could have easily missed some, but the only concrete OpenCyc
criticisms that I have seen surface on this group, I had to press for.
And they turned out not to be valid.

Thanks in advance for your focused attention to establishing the
relevance of you Cyc criticisms.

-Eric