Re: looking at the merged ontology

Adam Farquhar (axf@KSL.Stanford.EDU)
Fri, 28 Nov 1997 10:41:15 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)


> As announced at the last meeting, we are working at a review paper which
> addresses the semantic problems of current top-level proposals. I have some
> questions regarding the current version (1.1 , 3/11/97) of the merged
> ontology:
> 1. In the ontolingua source, "Individual" is a subclass of "Thing", while
> in the generated indented list the two classes appear at the same level.
> This seems to be a problem of the indented list generator.

Could be. We'll check on that, although a fix will have to wait for a
week or so as we will be at a meeting next week.

> 2. Is the merged ontology just the latest version of CYC upper level plus
> the SENSUS links? In other words, when writing the paper, should we
> consider separately the merged ontology on the Stanford site and the CYC
> upper level as available on the Austin site?

Consider them the same. Any difference in semantic content should be due
to an error.

> 3. Why so many annoying redundant generalization links, like
> Wood subclass-of Solid-Tangible-Thing
> Wood subclass-of Structural-Support-Stuff
> Structural-Support-Stuff subclass-of Solid-Tangible-Thing
> isn't subclass-of transitive?

I have removed many of these and will post a new version soon. These are
redundant and are an artifiact of the way that the contents was originally
extracted from cyc.