RE: SUO: ELP's summary of MRW's standards experience
Eric,
One of my concerns about OpenCyc is that it lacks the axioms present in
the proprietary version. If we are to use an SUO for reasoning, we need
the rules that define the associated concepts. There are other concerns
that folks have voiced, but that's a clear and concrete one to start with.
Adam
At 10:24 AM 6/23/2003 -0400, Eric Peterson wrote:
><snip>
>.
> >
> > >People can learn from their own mistake, although not always. It is
> > harder
> > to
> > >learn from the mistakes of the other. Especially when you don't know
>what
> > they
> >
> > >are.
> >
> > Right. That's why I promise to itemize, analyze, and
> > criticize their mistakes in my forthcoming report.
> >
> > John
>
>[ELP] I went to a AAAI tutorial on knowledge sharing several years ago
>where the really big name presenter showed a bunch of slides on
>relational query optimization - which was one of his big specialties.
>
>My point here is that we all are pressed with the temptation to show
>existing less relevant stuff rather than taking the time and care to be
>on point.
>
>I just want to make the point that until full Cyc is made public, it and
>criticisms about it are only of attenuated relevance to any discussions
>of this work group.
>
>I want to make sure that we are properly focused on the fact that
>OpenCyc is the only directly relevant Cycorp artifact on the table for
>discussion.
>
>The preceding admonition may not apply to you, but I respectfully ask
>you to - rather than citing papers critical of Cyc - cite some small
>number of axiomatic criticisms within those papers that clearly and
>demonstrably apply to OpenCyc. Three axioms per source would be a great
>start and would give us some grounded confidence that you have the right
>to cite these papers in the SUO context.
>
>I don't think waiting 'till later is at all acceptable when you are
>using your non-specific Cyc criticisms to sway SUO policy in the mean
>time.
>
>I could have easily missed some, but the only concrete OpenCyc
>criticisms that I have seen surface on this group, I had to press for.
>And they turned out not to be valid.
>
>Thanks in advance for your focused attention to establishing the
>relevance of you Cyc criticisms.
>
>-Eric