a pathway in biology is actually a network with directed arrows and
generally lots of loops.... there are even some hyperlinks e.g. for
catalysis... a pathway is a subhypergraph...



On Aug 7, 2017 11:25, "Linas Vepstas" <[email protected]> wrote:

> no clue why its appropriate for biological pathways. Mike is designing
> that, not me.
>
> Anyway, a "pathway" is an ordered sequence where the ordering matters.
> Neither SetLink, nor AndLink are ordered. So if you actually want to have a
> path, i.e. a sequence of directed arrows, well .. you  need to find a
> representation of  biological pathways as directed arrows. But this is
> familiar ground, for opencog...
>
> --linas
>
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> OK I get that... but I don't see why it is appropriate for biological
>> pathways...
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:19 AM, Linas Vepstas <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> > First, lets review SetLink:
>> >
>> >  SetLink
>> >     ConceptNode "x"
>> >     ConceptNode "y"
>> >     ConceptNode "z"
>> >
>> >
>> >  EquivalenceLink
>> >     ConceptNode "last three letters of the alphabet"
>> >     SetLink
>> >        ConceptNode "x"
>> >        ConceptNode "y"
>> >        ConceptNode "z"
>> >
>> >
>> >  MemberLink
>> >      ConceptNode "x"
>> >      ConceptNode "last three letters of the alphabet"
>> >   MemberLink
>> >      ConceptNode "y"
>> >      ConceptNode "last three letters of the alphabet"
>> >   MemberLink
>> >      ConceptNode "z"
>> >      ConceptNode "last three letters of the alphabet"
>> >
>> > Again, with TV's:
>> >
>> >   MemberLink  <1.0>
>> >      ConceptNode "z"
>> >      ConceptNode "last letters of the alphabet"
>> >   MemberLink  <0.9>
>> >      ConceptNode "w"
>> >      ConceptNode "last letters of the alphabet"
>> >   MemberLink  <0.8>
>> >      ConceptNode "s"
>> >      ConceptNode "last letters of the alphabet"
>> >   MemberLink  <0.2>
>> >      ConceptNode "m"
>> >      ConceptNode "last letters of the alphabet"
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Sooo .. AndMemberLink would be just like the above, except that
>> whereever
>> > you see SetLink above, you would have AndLink, and wherever you see
>> > MmeberLink above, you would have AndMemeberLink.
>> >
>> > --linas
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I don't understand the proposed semantics of AndMemberLink, could you
>> >> explain?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 1:07 AM, Michael Duncan <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > i actually think an AndLink-like semantics better fits biochemical
>> >> > pathways
>> >> > at a computationally tractable level than partitions in that below
>> the
>> >> > level
>> >> > of a whole organism, where one pathway ends and another begins is
>> >> > largely
>> >> > arbitrary.  also,  if one link is missing then the whole thing
>> doesn't
>> >> > work
>> >> > but the last bit of a dead end might be the start of another path
>> that
>> >> > goes
>> >> > to the same place, more like words and phrases that can be rearranged
>> >> > and
>> >> > swapped in different ways to say the same thing.  linus idea of
>> >> > AndMemberLinks and OrMemeberLinks would get around the size
>> limitation
>> >> > and
>> >> > also seem like they would be useful for reasoning on moses models.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 5:55:16 PM UTC-4, linas wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hi Ben, Mike,
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Some interesting representational issues have come up in the
>> context
>> >> >>> of Atomspace representation of pathways, which appear to have more
>> >> >>> general implications…
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> It seems the semantics we want for a biological pathway is sort of
>> >> >>> like “the pathway P is a set of relationships R1, R2, …, R20” in
>> kinda
>> >> >>> the same sense that “the human body is a set of organs: brain,
>> heart,
>> >> >>> lungs, legs, etc.”
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> First of all it seems what we have here is a part of relationship…
>> >> >>> maybe
>> >> >>> we want
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> PartLink
>> >> >>>     ConceptNode “heart”
>> >> >>>     ConceptNode “human-body”
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> and
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> PartLink
>> >> >>>     >relationship<
>> >> >>>     >pathway<
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> PartLink and PartOfLink have come and gone in
>> >> >>> OpenCog/Novamente/Webmind history...
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> An argument that PartLink should have fundamental status and a
>> >> >>> well-defined fuzzy truth value is given in this paper:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> https://www.academia.edu/1016959/Fuzzy_mereology
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> However what we need for biological pathways and human bodies seems
>> >> >>> like a bit more.   We want to say that a human body consists of a
>> >> >>> certain set of parts... not just that each of them is a part...
>> We're
>> >> >>> doing a decomposition.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> One way to do this would be
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> PartitionLink
>> >> >>>    ConceptNode “human-body”
>> >> >>>    ListLink
>> >> >>>       ConceptNode “legs”
>> >> >>>       ConceptNode “arms”
>> >> >>>       ConceptNode “brain”
>> >> >>>       etc.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Relatedly, we could also have
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As mentioned earlier, there are several problems with this format.
>> One
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> the "oops I forgot to mention xyz in the list" or "gosh I should
>> have
>> >> >> left
>> >> >> out pqr" and this becomes a big problem:  you have to delete the
>> >> >> PartitionLink, delete the ListLink, create a new list and partition.
>> >> >> In the
>> >> >> meanwhile, some other subsystem might be holding a handle to the
>> old,
>> >> >> now-wrong PartitionLink, and there is no effective way of announcing
>> >> >> "hey
>> >> >> stop using that old thing, get my new thing now".
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A second problem is that the above doesn't have anywhere to hang
>> >> >> addtional
>> >> >> data: e.g. "legs are a big part of the human body, having a mas of
>> >> >> nearly
>> >> >> half of the body." You can't just slap that on as a (truth)value,
>> cause
>> >> >> there's no where  to put that value.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Third problem is that large list-links are hard to handle in the
>> >> >> pattern
>> >> >> matcher. Its much much harder to write a query of the form  "find me
>> >> >> all
>> >> >> values of $X where
>> >> >>
>> >> >> PartitionLink
>> >> >>    ConceptNode “human-body”
>> >> >>    ListLink
>> >> >>       ConceptNode “legs”
>> >> >>       VariableNode  “$X”
>> >> >>       ConceptNode “brain”
>> >> >>
>> >> >> because, ... well the ListLink is an ordrerd link, not an unordered
>> >> >> link.
>> >> >> If you forget to include the pqr (added above) then the search will
>> >> >> fail.
>> >> >> You could try to use unordered links and globnodes, but these lead
>> to
>> >> >> other
>> >> >> difficulties, including the n! possible permutations of an unordered
>> >> >> link
>> >> >> become large n-factorial large when the unordered link has n items
>> in
>> >> >> it.
>> >> >> Recall that old factorial-70 trick used to make calculators
>> overflow.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In general, any link with more than 3 or 4 or 5 items in it is bad
>> >> >> news.
>> >> >> This is a generic statement about knowledge representation in
>> opencog.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> OverlappingPartitionLink
>> >> >>>     C
>> >> >>>     L
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> if we want to encompass cases where the partition elements in L can
>> >> >>> overlap; or
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> CoveringLink
>> >> >>>     C
>> >> >>>     L
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> if we want to encompass cases where the partition elements in L can
>> >> >>> overlap, AND the elements in L may encompass some stuff that’s not
>> in
>> >> >>> C
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> For the pathway case, we could then say
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> PartitionLink
>> >> >>>     ConceptNode “Krebs cycle”
>> >> >>>     ListLink
>> >> >>>         >relationship 1<
>> >> >>>         >relationship 2<
>> >> >>>         etc.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Now this solves the semantics problem but doesn’t solve the
>> problem of
>> >> >>> having a long ListLink….  A biological pathway might have 100s or
>> >> >>> 1000s of relationships in it, and we don't usually want to make
>> lists
>> >> >>> that big in the Atomspace...
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> To solve this we could do something like (for the human body case)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> PartitionLink
>> >> >>>    ConceptNode “human-body”
>> >> >>>    PartitionNode “body-partition-1”
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> PartitionElementLink
>> >> >>>    PartitionNode “body-partition-1"
>> >> >>>    ConceptNode “legs”
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> PartitionElementLink
>> >> >>>    PartitionNode “body-partition-1"
>> >> >>>    ConceptNode “arms”
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> etc.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> and similarly (for the biological pathway case)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> PartitionLink
>> >> >>>     ConceptNode “Krebs cycle”
>> >> >>>     PartitionNode “krebs-partition-1”
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> PartitionElementLink
>> >> >>>     PartitionNode “krebs-partition-1"
>> >> >>>     >relationship 1<
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> PartitionElementLink
>> >> >>>     PartitionNode “krebs-partition-1”
>> >> >>>     >relationship 2<
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yeah, sure. Not sure why the existing MemberLink is not sufficient
>> for
>> >> >> your purposes. The MemberLink has reasonably-well-defined semantics,
>> >> >> there
>> >> >> are already rules for handling it in PLN (or there will be rules --
>> I
>> >> >> think
>> >> >> its something Nil has thought about)   I'm not clear on why you'd
>> want
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> invent something that is just like MemberLink but is different.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> ...
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> There could be some nice truth value math regarding these, e.g. we
>> >> >>> could introduce Ellerman's "logical entropy" which is really a
>> >> >>> partition entropy.   There are also connections with some recent
>> >> >>> theoretical work I've been doing on "graphtropy" (using
>> "distinction
>> >> >>> graphs" that generalize partitions), which I'll post a paper on
>> >> >>> sometime in the next week or two....   But that will be another
>> email
>> >> >>> for another day...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yeah graphical-entropy is something that I keep trying to work on,
>> >> >> except
>> >> >> that every new urgent disaster of the day distracts me from it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --linas
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> -- Ben
>> >> >>>
>> >> > --
>> >> > 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/e1df7273-da14-45f5
>> -8d0d-5ebad0d31217%40googlegroups.com.
>> >> >
>> >> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Ben Goertzel, PhD
>> >> http://goertzel.org
>> >>
>> >> "I am God! I am nothing, I'm play, I am freedom, I am life. I am the
>> >> boundary, I am the peak." -- Alexander Scriabin
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ben Goertzel, PhD
>> http://goertzel.org
>>
>> "I am God! I am nothing, I'm play, I am freedom, I am life. I am the
>> boundary, I am the peak." -- Alexander Scriabin
>>
>
>

-- 
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/CACYTDBdPxXgCwCVaFVVb26GprHjELZVJOmDa_4D5%3DXqnCM5cbQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to