On Feb 17, 2008 4:11 PM, Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 17, 2008 9:56 AM, YKY (Yan King Yin) > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'm planning to collect commonsense knowledge into a large KB, in the form > > of first-order logic, probably very close to CycL. > > Before you embark on such a project, it might be worth first looking > closely at the question of why Cyc hasn't been useful, so that you > don't end up making the same mistakes. There's a school of thought, to > which I subscribe, that it's because Cyc's knowledge base isn't > grounded. Are you instead taking the view that Cyc's fundamental > approach is correct, and it just needs a somewhat different choice of > logical axioms or whatnot? >
It might be considered 'grounded' in some sense, but the problem is that it isn't used to derive other statements that are grounded in the same sense. Semantics for which Cyc database is grounded (human knowledge of word usage) is different from semantics that is used for inference, so in semantics used for inference it's ungrounded. But it might be possible to make inference engine that will use Cyc database in grounded way. Another question is if Cyc database will be useful for such inference engine. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=95818715-a78a9b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
