Hi Lukasz, This rule-handling ability looks interesting. Because I have already coded my subsumption-based Capability Matcher, I am inclined to spend time evaluating your algorithms only if my solution is unsound or lacks adequate performance.
The matcher I wrote performs unification and handles formulas consisting of atomic formulas and formulas having the implies, not, and and or logical operators. My Java code is here. I instrumented the matcher with a probe so that the complete state of matcher can be inspected after the fact, thus allowing the dialog system hopefully to answer why a particular capability match failed when the user expected it to succeed. Cheers, -Steve Stephen L. Reed Artificial Intelligence Researcher http://texai.org/blog http://texai.org 3008 Oak Crest Ave. Austin, Texas, USA 78704 512.791.7860 ----- Original Message ---- From: Lukasz Stafiniak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 2:42:06 PM Subject: [agi] (Interpreted!) RDF terms Because I use saturation anyway, my algorithms can be parameterized with a monotonic consequence operator, which could implement an implicational theory, with rules (at least) of the form for all (...) [ Phi ==> exist (...) Psi ] where Phi and Psi are conjunctions of RDF atoms plus Psi could also contain equalities. I could also add negation for atoms, by restricting labels and not-labels (in a similar way to how offspring_i and offspring_j would be restricted), but observe that there would be no closed-world assumption: lack of an edge means "I don't know yet". This is similar to bottom-up logic programming. On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 7:40 PM, Lukasz Stafiniak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Steve, > > How severe would you consider a restriction on RDF graphs that would > allow at most one incoming and at most one outgoing edge with a given > label, for capability descriptions? This would allow to do unification > (and generalization aka. intersection) on graphs easily (not as easily > as on terms, but nearly). Outside the system where it would be needed > (I have automatic programming / program analysis in mind), the > theory/graphs can be extended of course. For example, the parenting > relation would have to be split into "x offspring_i y" means "x is the > i-th offspring of y", and we could also add "outgoing" and "incoming" > restrictions, e.g. that a node cannot have incoming "offspring_i" and > "offspring_j" edges for i <> j. Outside, we would have the implication > "x offspring_i y ==> x offspring y". > > Best wishes. > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?&; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
