RE: Concrete OpenCyc Concerns (was: RE: SUO: ELP's summary of MRW's standards experience)
Adam;
Do you really think this is a fair criticism when the SUO "Scope &
Purpose", never specifies a requirement for such axioms?
All three stated purposes of the SUO can be compliantly filled by a DL
ontology.
So rather than criticizing a charter-compliant ontology for not living
up to your liberal reading of the charter, I suggest that you sell the
virtues of SUMO non-structural-axioms.
Or you could lobby that the charter be better aligned with you desires.
But I repeat my plea that we initially focus on the structural ontology:
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/suo/email/msg09288.html
FWIW,
-Eric
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Pease [mailto:adampease@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 10:51 AM
> To: Eric Peterson; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: Concrete OpenCyc Concerns (was: RE: SUO: ELP's summary of
> MRW's standards experience)
>
> Erik,
>
> At 09:37 AM 6/24/2003 -0400, Eric Peterson wrote:
> >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?
>
> Sure, take a look at almost any term and read its definition. You'll
find
> that there are not formal axioms that contain the definitional content
in
> English. For example
>
> (#$comment #$touches "(#$touches THIS THAT) means that THIS and THAT
are
> in
> contact, either directly or indirectly. Two spatial things are
directly
> in
> contact just in case there is nothing between them; ...")
>
> You'd like to have an axiom that says just that:
>
> (implies
> (touches ?THIS ?THAT)
> (not
> (exists (?OTHER)
> (between ?THIS ?THAT ?OTHER))))
>
> Some of the semantic content needed for the ontology is there in the
base
> axiom set that includes mathematical things like transitivity, and
some
> semantics is embodies in the type structure, but a lot is missing.
Cyc
> itself is an important achievement. It includes these axioms, but the
> current OpenCyc release lacks this useful content. My hope is that
one
> day
> the rest of the content will also be released.
>
> Adam
>
>
> >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