Hi! I have heard that AtomSpace is big hypergraph and the names of the representation elements - nodes and links - suggest exactly that.
So - knowledge can be represented as nodes and links, i.e. as hypergraph - let call it the "Type1" labelled hypergraph - semantic graph. But I guess that the same AtomSpace/OpenCog knowledge can be represented as mathematical formulas, e.g. as term logic formulas. Those formulas can have attributes that correspond to the probabilities but they are formulas anyway. Each formula is the word or sentence in some formal language and therefor it has syntactic graph representation as well. Let call it the "Type2" labelled hypergraph - syntactic graph. The question is - what is the connection between Type1 (Semantic) and Type2 (syntactic) graphs? I guess, there can be established semantic rules that allow on to construct Type1 graph from the Type2 graphs and back. What is the right type for the representation? I guess, Type2 graphs are more appropriate for the formal reasoning (e.g. sequent calculus). I have this question because there is this formalism - MMT https://uniformal.github.io/ - Meta-Meta-Theory that tries to unify all the (in)formal knowledge in one foundation free framework. There are wealth of literature how Florian Rabe with his collaborators try to encode every big formalism (Axiomatic Set Theory, Constructive Type Theory (Coq culture), Higher Order Logic (Isabelle/HOL culture) in one modular language. So - result can be the formalism, that allow to express every formula of every formalism in one common language and - of course - that means, that every formula can have Type2 graph assigned to it! And that means that we can encode in one graph database all the possible formulas (all the possible non-multimedia knowledge). MMT is largely completed work, so - there remains the technical work only - one can take the best open source graph database (JanusGraphs is the best) and encode this knowledge and attain the most universal knowledge base possible, that is certainly more expressible than OpenCog (that currently uses (probabilistic) term logic). One should add that each formula syntactic graph (Type2 graph) can have associated semantic graph representations (Type1 graphs) - there can be more semantic representations for the one syntactic one. Sadly, this relationship between syntactic-semantic graphs is very little researched field. There are, of course, research about semantic graphs themselves (every knowledge representation with graphs do this), but about connection between syntactic and semantic graphs there is only one work of which I am aware of: http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/ldixon/papers/dixon-camcad-09.pdf - about logical graphs. So - we can have knowledge system that have the best from the both worlds: - The knowledge representation forma is taken from the MMT - The knowledge representation techniqye is taken from JanusGraph - the best that the industry can provide. That can be the future of knowledge representation systems. Sometimes I am very, very suscipicous about efforts of building custom knowledge bases. There are necessary so many resources to implement technicalities that I can not believe that custom knowledge base can compete with universal, industrial quality graph database. My guess is - if industrial graph databases had been around at the time of inception of cognitive architectures (Soar, Clarion, Cog, etc.) the all the cognitive architecture would be built around/using the industrial quality graph databases. So - one graph database can host both types of graphs - both syntactic and semantic graphs and also this graph database can host reasoning and self-development procedures (which are programs, which can be represented as syntactic trees and saved in the same graph database as the remaining knowledge) for self-(re)evolution. So - big, big self-evolving system or hypergraphs that lives in the industrial grade graph database. Maybe this can be the start of AGI? I call my system MOC - MetaOmegaCog (MetaOmega stands for meta-meta-meta...) What are your thoughts about such plans? -- 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/c436ad44-7d70-4af2-a3b9-cae81d6d2788%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
