Re: Cyc Subject Predicate Object

Vaughan
I read your report on Cyc, and would like to offer you
a little insight into the relation between mKE/mKR and Cyc/CycL.

1. Theoretically, both systems have the same "power",
but Cyc/CycL is way ahead in terms of current knowledge content.
For example, Cyc 1.0 has about 7000 contexts (Microtheories), and
I have never worked with more than a half dozen.
mKE does have a lot of built-in consistency checks;
it has found many problems in the Cyc Upper Ontology.
Further, I propose replacing the current plethora of Type classes
with a few "horizontal" relations (details to be determined).

Although mKE/mKR has the "power", I have made no attempt
to reproduce human common-sense reasoning.  I call mKR
a "Real Intelligence" language.  mKR is designed to augment human
intelligence (to help a person "work smarter"), not to equal human
intelligence  artificially.

I have designed mKR to be able to record any human knowledge.
mKR includes all NSM (Natural Semantic Metalanguage) concepts --
universal concepts found in all human natural languages.

2. Given that Cyc/NL does not yet exist, I'd say that
mKE/mKR has a better user interface.
mKR is a "programming language", but its
English-like syntax & semantics are more user-friendly
than the LISP-like syntax & semantics of CycL.

I have informally proposed to Cycorp that:
a. Cyc/mKR be used as a temporary substitute for Cyc/NL;
b. mKR be used as an import/export language for Cyc;
c. mKE/mKR be used as command-line interface to Cyc.
(I already have a working version, but it's not very robust).

No official response from Cycorp as yet.

3. Cyc does have a very nice internet browser interface.
mKE has no internet browser interface .
(But it can execute a browser so a human user
can look at another knowledge base).

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Vaughan Pratt" <pratt@cs.stanford.edu>
To: "Semantic Web at W3C" <semantic-web@w3.org>; "OWL at W3C" 
<www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: Cyc Subject Predicate Object


>
> Mark Montgomery wrote:
>>  A fairly common and in my view accurate position coming primarily from 
>> education related scientists suggests that the guild has become so 
>> effective in modern times that it would protect itself against an 
>> Einstein or da Vinci from ever being discovered, who today many believe 
>> may never make it through public education due to the dysfunction of our 
>> institutions.
>
> Ontology being the study of ta onta, Greek for what there is, what you 
> wrote could conceivably count as a contribution to ontology by asserting 
> that there is a guild and giving its attributes.
>
> You're quite right about the guild.  It is alive and well today, and 
> continues to work to protect itself against the likes of CYC.
>
> Just don't underestimate the guild of a century ago, which managed to 
> protect itself against Einstein himself by granting faculty positions to 
> three of his fellow graduates in 1901, leaving Einstein to scramble for a 
> job in the patent office.  At least he got a job -- in Galileo's day he 
> would have been sentenced to house arrest (assuming he recanted) for 
> anything so radical and obviously wrong as relativity.
>
> That's not to extrapolate that now the guild is greatly weakened. You're 
> right about the power of the guild, just as L. Ron Hubbard was right about 
> the power of SMERSH.  The Guild today will be The Matrix of tomorrow, able 
> to protect itself against a Larry Lessig or Jerry Yang from ever being 
> discovered.  Today's luminaries are lucky not to have been born a few 
> centuries earlier by the evidence of history, nor a century hence by the 
> evidence of your reasoning.
>
> I should know: I work for The Guild.  See my efforts to protect it against 
> CYC at http://boole.stanford.edu/cyc.html
>
> Vaughan Pratt
>
>

Received on Saturday, 17 February 2007 09:50:30 UTC