RE: Concrete OpenCyc Concerns (was: RE: SUO: ELP's summary of MRW's standards experience)
Eric,
At 01:15 PM 6/24/2003 -0400, Eric Peterson wrote:
>Adam;
>
>Do you really think this is a fair criticism when the SUO "Scope &
>Purpose", never specifies a requirement for such axioms?
Yes, I think it's certainly a fair criticism. It's also fair to disagree
with the criticism.
>All three stated purposes of the SUO can be compliantly filled by a DL
>ontology.
I disagree, but I can see how one could legitimately read it that way.
>So rather than criticizing a charter-compliant ontology for not living
>up to your liberal reading of the charter, I suggest that you sell the
>virtues of SUMO non-structural-axioms.
Well, it doesn't seem to me that takes much selling, unless one is already
set on using a particular product. If we're to do automated reasoning,
certainly it would be advantageous to have formal axioms that provide the
meaning for terms. You could argue that it's not *necessary* to have such
axioms, but I don't see how you could argue that's it's not advantageous.
>Or you could lobby that the charter be better aligned with you desires.
Actually, I felt that the charter is completely aligned with my
desires. Unfortunately, English is ambiguous, and affords a variety of
interpretations.
>But I repeat my plea that we initially focus on the structural ontology:
>http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/suo/email/msg09288.html
I agree that would be a good area to work on.
Adam
>FWIW,
>
>-Eric
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adam Pease [mailto:adampease@earthlink.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 10:51 AM
> > To: Eric Peterson; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > Subject: Re: Concrete OpenCyc Concerns (was: RE: SUO: ELP's summary of
> > MRW's standards experience)
> >
> > Erik,
> >
> > At 09:37 AM 6/24/2003 -0400, Eric Peterson wrote:
> > >Thanks for your reply, Adam.
> > >
> > >Can you point us to some small number of OpenCyc axioms that are
> > >incomplete in the absence full-Cyc axioms and explain precisely what
>is
> > >lacking in the SUO context?
> >
> > Sure, take a look at almost any term and read its definition. You'll
>find
> > that there are not formal axioms that contain the definitional content
>in
> > English. For example
> >
> > (#$comment #$touches "(#$touches THIS THAT) means that THIS and THAT
>are
> > in
> > contact, either directly or indirectly. Two spatial things are
>directly
> > in
> > contact just in case there is nothing between them; ...")
> >
> > You'd like to have an axiom that says just that:
> >
> > (implies
> > (touches ?THIS ?THAT)
> > (not
> > (exists (?OTHER)
> > (between ?THIS ?THAT ?OTHER))))
> >
> > Some of the semantic content needed for the ontology is there in the
>base
> > axiom set that includes mathematical things like transitivity, and
>some
> > semantics is embodies in the type structure, but a lot is missing.
>Cyc
> > itself is an important achievement. It includes these axioms, but the
> > current OpenCyc release lacks this useful content. My hope is that
>one
> > day
> > the rest of the content will also be released.
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> > >For my previously stated thoughts on this subject:
> > >http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/suo/email/msg09587.html
> > >
> > >
> > >Cheers!
> > >
> > >-Eric
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Adam Pease [mailto:adampease@earthlink.net]
> > > > Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 7:00 PM
> > > > To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > > > Subject: RE: SUO: ELP's summary of MRW's standards experience
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Eric,
> > > > One of my concerns about OpenCyc is that it lacks the axioms
> > >present in
> > > > the proprietary version. If we are to use an SUO for reasoning,
>we
> > >need
> > > > the rules that define the associated concepts. There are other
> > >concerns
> > > > that folks have voiced, but that's a clear and concrete one to
>start
> > >with.
> > > >
> > > > Adam
> > > >
> > > > At 10:24 AM 6/23/2003 -0400, Eric Peterson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ><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