RE: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
Eric,
If you don't feel the need for axioms in an ontology, then we may have
different objectives. One of the goals of the SUO charter is inference so
it seems to me that axioms are essential in any proposed standard for this
group.
I don't have any goals for motion #2. I promised to support John's
motion in order to get his support for mine. I feel that neither approach
is proven so we should be both free to proceed. I don't know how to
proceed with the technical effort involved in motion #2, but once some
folks start the process, I'm hoping that will give me the information and
motivation needed to become an active participant, rather than a
bystander. Meanwhile, I'll move forward with the work proposed in motion
#1, which I feel addresses the current SUO charter.
Adam
At 02:03 PM 6/4/2003 -0400, Eric Peterson wrote:
> > -----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