Fw: Re: SUO: An idea for making progress
Forwarded for Dietrich Fischer:
--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Fischer <Fischer@ipsi.fhg.de>
To: jim.s3@juno.com
Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:49:42 +0200
Subject: Re: SUO: An idea for making progress
... a question concerning the OpenCyc starter document:
Adam Pease pointed out on 21.04.03 17:35:
"The version of Cyc being proposed contains *no rules*. Folks can verify
this for themselves by searching the proposed file for occurrences of
"implies" as well as "or" [since (implies A B) is equivalent to (or (not
A) B)]."
The version of Cyc being proposed was given by
"A text-only version of the OpenCyc ontology can be found at (and
downloaded from): http://www.cyc.com/SUO/opencyc-ontology.txt . It is
unwieldy to read
in this form, but it should provide clear boundaries for what is and
what is not part of the ontology. "
(see mail of John De Oliveira to jim.s and SUO on 10.04.2003 17:06)
In addition one can say that this text file does not contain any
bindings of assertions to microtheories.
One can see in the file many duplicate assertions which are caused by
omitting the bindings.
From this follows, the cited text file does not contain that state of
the content of the ontology of OpenCyc 0.7
which is available when you take this road:
"An easier way to
browse the OpenCyc ontology is by downloading OpenCyc
(http://www.opencyc.org ) or by using one of the public OpenCyc servers
( http://www.opencyc.org/public_servers )." (John De Oliveira, same mail
as above).
So my question is, what is the function and status of the OpenCyc
starter document?
Are the observed differences (and possibly others?) between the content
of the published KB 0.7
and the content of the referenced text file intended and, if yes, what
does it mean?
Regards
Dietrich
PS. Jim, what shall I do to make the mentioned previous two and this
emal visible to the group?
(see my email of yesterday to you, Subject: Re: SUO: List problems
solved, hopefully)
jim.s3@juno.com wrote:
>All,
>
> Here's an idea for how to make some progress on each of the
three
>doucment. Call for comments on each of the documents in the form of a
>vote on whether to raise each document to 'Working Draft' status. The
>objective of the vote would not be to collect enough YES votes, but
>rather to collect serious comments on what members want to see
>incorporated in the document before willing to YES in follow-on vote.
>
> It is true that comments could be solicited without a formal
>vote, but I believe having the vote will encourage more members to
submit
>serious comments.
>
>Jim Schoening
>
>________________________________________________________________
>The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
>Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
>Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
>
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!