Concrete OpenCyc Concerns (was: RE: SUO: ELP's summary of MRW's standards experience)
Thanks for your reply, Adam.
Can you point us to some small number of OpenCyc axioms that are
incomplete in the absence full-Cyc axioms and explain precisely what is
lacking in the SUO context?
For my previously stated thoughts on this subject:
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/suo/email/msg09587.html
Cheers!
-Eric
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Pease [mailto:adampease@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 7:00 PM
> To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: 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