I couldn't agree more. I've been following Cyc off and on for 20 years. It has yet to produce anything that interests me. I have yet to see a good project I can get my hands on that gets anything OUT of Cyc. Last time I checked, after decades of input into Cyc all the papers on the Cyc sites were still about new ways to put into Cyc. They started an annual contest a few years ago for Cyc projects. I actually hacked together a not very good proposal to attempt to get value added information out of Cyc; and the winner? An academic proposal on another method of feeding the Cyc knowledge base.
>>jackfo+(OP)
It's Achilles Heel of all general purpose semantic graphs, "it'll work if only we add more stuff to the graph!" except I'm not convinced that the approach will ever work, no matter how large the graph is.
>>elblan+9d
(non-computer tech here) Critical points taken, but what about the value to the Cleveland Clinic's cardiology dept.? See article by Clinic's IT semantic web project staff at http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/ClevelandClin.... Isn't that the utiility of a deductive reasoning engine - taking disparate data overwhelming to humans - and cranking through it as queried in human language terms? I'm just asking.