On 1/20/07, Stephen Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've been using OpenCyc as the standard ontology for my texai project.
OpenCyc contains only the very few rules needed to enable the OpenCyc deductive inference engine operate on its OpenCyc content. On the other hand ResearchCyc, whose licenses are available without fees for research purposes, has a large number of rules. I have a license and can state that my copy of RCyc has 55,794 rules out of a total of 2,689,421 non-bookkeeping assertions. Nearly all of these rules were entered by hand at Cycorp. Here are five at random with my comments to give you a feel for what RCyc contains:
[...]
Thanks a lot for this info... The Cyc rules you cited seem to be of the "nonverbal" knowledge kind, whereas my project tend to focus on the more "verbal" facet of common sense. But there should be no clear-cut boundary between the 2. Do you think Cyc has a rule/fact like "wet things can usually conduct electricity" (or "if X is wet then X may conduct electricity")? That's the kind of verbal knowledge I'm interested in -- things that can be entered by laymen in natural langauge. I use a logical form that has a (nearly) 1-1 mapping to NL. To keep things simple -- for this project -- we can focus on collecting the facts/rules, without talking about the inference engine or other deep AGI issues. I'll also contact some Cyc folks to see if they're interested in collaborating... YKY ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
