W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > February 2007

Re: Cyc Subject Predicate Object

From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@PioneerCA.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:44:02 -0800
Message-ID: <000f01c75107$5f5c1680$6401a8c0@rhm8200>
To: <g.tummarello@gmail.com>
Cc: "Semantic Web at W3C" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "OWL at W3C" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>

I did exactly what you are suggesting - 4 YEARS AGO.
My recent emails constitute a status update, with
new tools that members of this ML can use NOW.

But I don't want to SPAM anyone.
Unless I receive some inquiries from this ML,
you won't hear from me again.

Dick McCullough
knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
knowledge haspart proposition list;
http://mKRmKE.org/

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Giovanni Tummarello" <g.tummarello@gmail.com>
To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@pioneerca.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 4:58 AM
Subject: Re: Cyc Subject Predicate Object


> Richard, are you sure your posts are appropriate in this ML?
> While they might seem on topic, there is no reply nor hint of direct
> interest and they involve what appear to be idiosyncrasies and are
> anyway are hard to follow.
> I think you should open a newsgroup of your own (look into Google
> groups and yahoo) for respect for those who have just interest in what
> the ML is about. the W3C Semantic Web initiative (questions and
> answers related to the standards, announcements of new projects
> (please note that people just anonunce, dont insist on things unless
> they're asked directly and think that the reply interests more) )
> Sincerely
> Giovanni
> 
> On 2/15/07, Richard H. McCullough <rhm@pioneerca.com> wrote:
>>
>> 1. Here's my first cut at organizing all those
>> first-level concepts in the Cyc hierarchy.
>> Looks like we should call this one an
>> Entity-Relation-Proposition hierarchy.
>>
>> # <html><xmp>
>> # KEHOME/kb/spo.cyc
>> # Feb/15/2007
>>
>> begin hierarchy Entity-Relation-Proposition;
>> Thing;
>> # entity
>> /  Entity;
>> /  IndexicalConcept;
>> /  Individual;
>> //     TemporalThing;
>> ///     SomethingExistiing;
>> ////         Entity;
>> /  Intangible;
>> /  PartiallyIntangible;
>> /  PartiallyTangible;
>> /  TangibleThing;
>>
>> # characteristic
>> /  Relation;
>> //      FixedArityRelation;
>> ///         BinaryRelation;
>> ////             Property;
>>
>> # context
>> /  Microtheory;
>> # proposition
>> /  CycLQuery;
>> /  CycLTerm;
>> /  DocumentationConstant;
>> /  ELSentence-Assertible;
>> /  ELTemplate;
>> /  ELVariable;
>> /  Path-Generic;
>> /  PathSystem;
>> /  ReformulatorHighlyRelevantFORT;
>> /  ReformulatorIrrelevantFORT;
>> /  SubLSymbol;
>> /  TheTerm;
>>
>> # group
>> /  SetOrCollection;
>> // Collection;
>> ///     Class;
>> ///     CoreConstant;
>> // Set-Mathematical;
>> end hierarchy Entity-Relation-Proposition;
>>
>> begin hierarchy imaginary;
>> Nothing;
>> end hierarchy imaginary;
>>
>> # propositions
>> # Thing      has Property = Value;
>> # individual isu class;
>> # species    iss genus;
>> (#$Property #$Thing #$Value);
>> (#$isa individual class);
>> (#$genls species genus);
>>
>> # mKR relation CycL
>> nonexistent is Nothing;
>> existent is Thing;
>> #  entity is Entity;
>> #  characteristic is Relation;
>> #  proposition is Proposition;
>> # isu is isa;
>> # iss is genls;
>> #</xmp></html>
>>
>> 2. I'm still looking at the internals of the ERP hierarchy.
>> I've found more Collections, and lots of Type classes.
>> I think all these Type classes have the same error -- using
>> "isu","iss" relations instead of "ismem" relations.  I'm not
>> aware of any reason for having these Type classes.
>> My guess, pending further investigation, is that all the
>> Type classes should be removed from the hierarchy.
>>
>> Dick McCullough
>> knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
>> knowledge haspart proposition list;
>> http://mKRmKE.org/
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
>
Received on Thursday, 15 February 2007 13:44:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:47 UTC