Search (1 results, page 1 of 1)

0.002269176 = product of:
  0.004538352 = sum of:
    0.004538352 = product of:
      0.009076704 = sum of:
        0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 5087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009076704 = score(doc=5087,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 5087, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5087)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

For automated question-answering, natural-language understanding, semantic integration of different databases/standards/thesauri/etc., you need a big complicated ontology of concepts and a logical language to combine them. Cyc (www.cyc.com) is such a system. It's good for your upper ontology to be systematic and clear, One way is to have a small number of well-defined distinctions at the top, by which all more specific concepts are partitioned. This is a system of "factors", or "facets" in Ranganathan's sense Iyer 1995) much like Aristotle's "differentia" in his "categories", as promoted in John Sowa's "ontological crystal". Practical considerations have driven Cyc's builders to mess up the neatness of such upper divisions. In particular, the simplicity of some very high "factors" is confounded, for practical use, by the occurrence in our world of semiosis and representation This talk will report on some of our experiences