Re: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
> >
> Pierre Grenon said a lot of things that I agree with to
> a large extent. I would just add a few qualifications:
>
> > To me anything which attempts to make me believe that OpenCyc
> > is better than anything else based on whatever heroic history
> > it has is marketing and bullshit. Cyc has been more shaped by
> > idiomatic intuitions and implementation constraints than
> > anything else. Maybe this didn't prevent it from being
> > successful, not sure it is a good piece of UO.
>
> The only point I disagree with is the implication that Cyc has
> been "successful". For 19 years, it has succeeded in getting
> research contracts. Nobody is buying it and using it to make
> money or to save money on mission-critical applications.
>
My friend,
I think I understand better why I have so much difficulties communicating with
you and why I have so often the impression that you just miss my point.
I could care less whether Cycorp is making money or whether anybody is making
money with Cyc. This would not change anything to the question as to whether
Cyc is powerful tool or a useless toy. I am far from evaluating the success of
an ontology or a system in comparison to its commercial success. And this is
basically were, so it seems, our views split.
By successful, I meant something like able to succesfully fulfill (or to
fulfill it better than other) the expected or intended use, not able to sell.
(In that respect, I think that Cyc has been more than successful with its DARPA
contracts. Incidentally, it is odd that you'd downsize DoD's and DARPA's role
in the current conjecture.) This has implications on the way I regard the task
of this group.
The task of building an SUO is to me akin to a scientific activity. This is why
I emphasized the importance of foundational work and methodlogy such as
philosophical analysis and so on. This is also why I put the role of legacy
ontologies on a second plan, although of course I do not mean to forget
everything that has been done.
I've never regarded the SUO as standard in the sense that it would reflect
standard use, even less that it would reflect the approach and material used by
companies which happen to be commercially successful today. By standard, I
simply understood an upper level ontology which can be consensually used as a
reference and eventually used for scaling or improving existing and developing
future application which will be successful in my sense. That they might be
successful in your sense, I believe would be of an increased likelihood, but
that is not at all necessary -- and it doesn't matter, at least and imho, to
this group. More generally, I am hoping for good and useful systems not trendy
ones.
Many will find this naive, I wish them good luck in developing something of a
non immediate commercial value with their eyes and brains fixed on short terms
commercial goals.
Best,
Pierre