I am learning OpenCog for months and still I am struggling to express myself in the terms of Nodes and Links? E.g. OO has this extremely handy notion of attributes (which can be simple types or complex types), but each attribute of OpenCog requires such an elaborate and not clearly documented code.
OO and UML has those notions of association and part of one object to another object, but in OpenCog AssociativeLink is quite undefined but PartOfLink is just syntactic sugar that is not yet implemented according to the documentation. Object model of the world is so self-obvoius and why OpenCog does not adopt it? Even ConceptNet adopts it. Sometimes I can not believe the statement that Hanson Robotics uses OpenCog for its knowledge base, because robotic domain requires so much object-orientation, so much numerical and categorical attributes that association link, attributes, object orientation should be first-class citizens to make this knowledge management framework useable for large scale practical projects. I am not insulting anyone (I am deeply sorry if it sounded like that, apologies), I am just wondering how to perceive all this, what are the benfits from rejection of object orientation and making some quite elusive notions? My guess is that AGI system should be generalization of OO, not rejection of it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "opencog" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/79c4b7ee-b159-4dce-9855-3cc9e623f6d6%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
