Hello,
My agent has a knowledgebase in which every fact is a definstance fact. The
reason for this is that I use the Jade ontology support which specifies all
concepts, predicates and actions in the agent's world. This ontology support
maps all elements (concepts, predicates etc.) on Java classes.
For example the predicate (have :POSSESSION (pencil) :OWNER (human :NAME
Jaap)) results in the following fact:
(MAIN::have(class <External-Address:java.lang.Class>) (owner
<External-Address:storyagents.storyworldontology.Human>) (possession
<External-Address:storyagents.storyworldontology.Pencil>) (OBJECT
<External-Address:storyagents.storyworldontology.Have>)
Suppose I have a rule that says: if I want to write and I have a pencil,
then I will write. This could be done in the following manner:
(defrule write
(want-to-write)
(have (possession ?p))
(pencil (OBJECT ?p))
=>
(printout t "I am writing" crlf)
)
However, I want to use backtracking and do something like:
(do-backward-chaining have)
(defrule write
(want-to-write)
(have (possession ?p <of type pencil>))
=>
(printout t "I am writing" crlf)
)
Is such a thing possible? The problem with the first method is that if I use
backward chaining all I get is an empty need-have fact (all slots nil).
An additional question: is it possible to let need-have only be asserted
when (want-to-write) - a non-backward-chaining fact - is asserted?
Bye,
Sander
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users [EMAIL PROTECTED]'
in the BODY of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], NOT to the list
(use your own address!) List problems? Notify [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
