Absolutely! And 'ontological coding', as you call it, of the beginning and end of physical continuities of events is one of the 'natural categories' that can be marked with measurable confidence. That leads to also marking the transitions between the different types of flow in complex physical systems too, that I find helps more than most things.
I'll have to try OpenCyc to have any clear idea what it's for. What's the productive question it asks? Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 10:09 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source. > > > Phil Henshaw wrote: > > So maybe the question of abstract v. real categories could provide > > plenty to talk about. > > > Or perhaps how to take a lot of talk (or papers) and mine it > for strict > or fuzzy categories that a computer could use, e.g. software like > http://www.opencyc.org > > I think that common sense knowledge and reasoning (above) > combined with > careful ontological coding work by librarians and domain experts is a > necessary feature for automated learning of useful abstract > categories > from scientific texts (and in turn scientific semantic web > applications) > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
