RE: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Pease [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 1:04 PM
> To: Eric Peterson; John F. Sowa; Mike Pool; clegg@cyc.com; John
DeOliveira
> Cc: Patrick Cassidy; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
>
> Folks,
> A merger would be a good idea in principle, but in order to merge
we'd
> need to know the full semantics of the terms. Since the axioms have
not
> been released for the upper level of Cyc, I don't know how we could
> proceed.
[ELP] Adam, I'll be frank - I was rather taken aback by your response.
The axioms are not on the table for discussion. We have OpenCyc. Its
semantics are in its structure, names, and doc strings. I've never
spent even a second scratching my head and wishing for Cyc's axioms to
enlighten my understanding as to OpenCyc's meaning. I wish I had them
to inference on however. Cycorp in my hearing has never even hinted and
releasing non-structural axioms. They are unavailable and most of the
OpenCyc doc strings are to my mind the best doc strings in the data
modeling business. The axioms, therefore, are totally irrelevant.
You worked arm in arm with Cycorp for years. You recommended HPKB-Cyc
for use in my project when I was mired in the use of some buggy academic
tools. I owe you a debt of thanks for that.
I'm grateful the OpenCyc is available. I want the whole thing, but I
acknowledge their significant expense in releasing their environment and
some of its more general content.
If you're not willing to merge, what do you gain from motion number two
other than some air-time. John S., is talking up collaboration right
now (other than his wording of motion #2). What are you talking? What
do you want to see happen with OpenCyc and SUMO assuming #2 is accepted?
-Eric