gy that is different , but about as useful as Cyc.  If it is done
well it will be costly and it  seems to me this would be a waste of
considerable resource.

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.
Doug Lenat (Cyc's CEO) offered his co-operation in one of the first
messages posted to this list (I couldn't find this message in the
archives).  The Cyc upper level is not what I would prefer as an upper
level ontolo