have done it reasonably well.&nbsp;&nbsp;
A similar approach, if done well, is likely to produce an ontology that
is different , but about as useful as Cyc.&nbsp; If it is done well it
will be costly and it&nbsp; seems to me this would be a waste of considerable
resource.
<p>I am not arguing that Cyc be accepted as "the" standard upper level
ontology - Cyc already is the "standard" to the extent there is one.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Doug Lenat (Cyc's CEO) offered his co-operation in one of the first messages
post