YKY, There is not really a fundamental difference here as I understand it-- it is convenient to think of the KB as a hypergraph, and this way of thinking of it does suggest some interesting implementation decisions that I wish I knew more about (ie opencog uses an exotic type of database), but this is not essential. Paging through the OCP book, you will often see examples written in sentential form.
--Abram On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 7:26 PM, YKY (Yan King Yin) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 8:53 PM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Recent history shows that the following three models *do* work: >> >> 3) >> A FOSS project coupled with a company that makes $$ selling services >> or making custom code based on the FOSS code > > Thanks for typing out the long explanation. It has some good points > and I kind of agree with it. > > I guess I'll try #3 and see what happens. Recently, I've decided to > use Lisp as the procedural language, so that makes my approach even > more similar to OCP's. One remaining big difference is that my KB is > sentential but OCP's is graphical. Maybe we should spend some time > discussing the merits of each... > > YKY > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
