- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 14:36:16 -0700
- To: "Bill Andersen" <andersen@ontologyworks.com>, "R.V.Guha" <guha@guha.com>, "Jeff Heflin" <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>, "RDF Logic" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
From: "Bill Andersen" <andersen@ontologyworks.com> > It's unclear what Cyc's model theory is at all. So if you pick some model > theory T, it's a fair bet that Cyc's model theory, whatever it is, is > inconsistent with T. At it's base, the Cyc engine is a resolution theorem > prover augmented with special purpose modules (many of which have fixpoint > semantics) and the argumentation system for NM reasoning, so you have some > minimal model stuff thrown in. I would defy anyone, even including Keith > Goolsbey who wrote the thing, to tell me what all of that *combined* means. > In my view, this is nothing to crow about. I doubt that model theory is going to help us define ~meaning~ on the semantic web. Rather we might consider falling back on a more pragmatic kind of theory. A rdf graph means something to the process (perhaps even a FOPL inference process) which interperts it and responds to it. Embedded in that description is the assumption that there is no such thing as ~meaning~ floating free in the ether, rather there is only ~meaning to ?Agent~. Seth Russell
Received on Thursday, 23 May 2002 17:42:00 UTC