SUO: Re: CYC Event vs. SUMO Process -- Really Different?
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
First of all it is not necessary to vote,
since a well designed Index should be able
to keep track of all the orthodoxies and
all the heresies in one easy-to-reverence
and easy-to-purge form.
Second, it is absurd to vote on things like defending the faith in
epicyclic and geocentric theories of planetary motion, since the
Ontological Civil Liberties Coproduct already devotes a share
of its time to protecting the masses from undue Inquisition
and preserving everybody's right to believe and to promote
anything they want, so long as they do not act on it,
or incite others to riot.
So all we really need here is
Freedom of Information and
Truth In Advertising
provisions.
A simple matter of indexing the notions of everything
from "commonsense" to "whatever" with the relevant
stewards thereof, for instance, Commonsense_Cyc
and Commonsense_SUMO, ought to be sufficient.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Patrick Cassidy wrote:
>
> Erik,
> I agree with you that a vote at some time after reasonable
> discussion will be necessary when no unanimity is evident.
> That is how I suggest we proceed with this thread I have
> started. I also encourage others to start alternative
> threads if they feel that a different methodology or
> different starting point is better. I will try to
> participate in as many working threads as physically
> possible. I think that multiple threads can be
> useful.
>
> Pat
>
> =============
> Erik Larson wrote:
> > Pat,
> > On point 2. below Guarino has noted (sorry I don't have the reference
> > handy) that there isn't any consensus in the existing foundational
> > ontologies (SUMO, OpenCyc, DOLCE, etc.) There are basic philosophical
> > differences (e.g., between scientific-engineering definitions and
> > cognitive or "common sense" ones) that divide foundational ontologies on
> > important terms such as "Event" from the outset. So there isn't likely
> > to be a consensus as long as the members of the group don't share a
> > common set of philosophical assumptions. Point blank. (If you are
> > tempted to disagree, have a look at the last couple years of discussions
> > on this list.)
> >
> > What I suggest is that the group forces a vote on important definitions,
> > such as that of "Event." Otherwise, discussion can and will continue
> > endlessly. Bringing the matter to a vote will involve the members of
> > the group in a process that moves forward and that reflects the ideas of
> > the majority.
> >
> > If there's something wrong with THAT suggestion, and given that harping
> > on pet theories based on philosophical biases (themselves codified, in
> > many cases, by business interest or personal stake) isn't working, then
> > I'm stumped.
> >
> > Erik
> >
> > Patrick Cassidy <pcassidy@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > 2. I suggest that we try to find some degree of
> > consensus on what would constitute an "Event" in a
> > merged ontology, since events (or the 4-D correlate
> > "activity") are central to all ontologies dealing
> > with real-world problems. If agreement can be found
> > on that class, the discussion can be expanded to
> > related classes.
> > 3. If a different process for building such a merged
> > ontology appears preferable to any of the participants,
> > I hope they will make a suggestion for the alternative.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > SBC Yahoo! DSL
> > <http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://rd.yahoo.com/evt=1207/*http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/>
> > - Now only $29.95 per month!
>
> --
> =============================================
> Patrick Cassidy
>
> MICRA, Inc. || (908) 561-3416
> 735 Belvidere Ave. || (908) 668-5252 (if no answer)
> Plainfield, NJ 07062-2054 || (908) 668-5904 (fax)
>
> internet: cassidy@micra.com
> =============================================
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o