Hi Alex :) I'm just a lurker here most of the time, so you may want to skip my post. >From what I've learned by now of OpenCog, AtomSpace is pretty much what MMT is about: a foundation for implementing whatever framework is suitable to obtain some task. To digress a bit, I've been working myself on something like MMT, and I like my results by now. But to return to OpenCog, AtomSpace should be able to describe all kinds of logics - if I'm not mistaken. And that shouldn't really be a big deal. Any theory, being lambda calculus, type theory, or a vast of available programming languages (of course, every programming language is a theory in which you can describe computations and do the interpretations), can be described each in another if they are complete enough, just like you can program the whole Python in Basic and otherwise around. One of the questions is a question of completeness of such a theory (Turing completeness notion rings my bells). Other question that arises is language's simplicity vibe that dictates how well would that language be accepted widely. The most of AI researches have developed their own languages for representing knowledge because the other solutions just "didn't seem right" or "could be improven", and among the others, the AtomSpace was born. But what I'd really like to see is setting up some standards in knowledge representation field, something that would every AI researcher have in mind when developing her/his ideas. Right now, I see a bunch of rough inference tools across the web, each of them is doing basically the same stuff, but overall, they are all incompatible each with another. I wonder what does it take for a knowledge base tool to be widely accepted. Probably its usability in industrial projects plays a significant role, but who knows? Maybe MMT would be able to change the game.
If you like MMT very much, and would like to see its implementation in OpenCog, you should probably make a comparison chart between AtomSpace and MMT. If MMT shows some benefits over AtomSpace, then there is a possibility that you'll be heard. As for a back-end database, any would do, because (in my opinion) the main database should be the very AtomSpace (or something else chosen), no matter of low level solutions like Postgtres DB that are powering it behind. Front-end is what should matter the most. 2017-10-01 0:20 GMT+02:00 Alex <[email protected]>: > 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 > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/c436ad44-7d70-4af2-a3b9-cae81d6d2788%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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/CAB5%3Dj6U04QVPEBOqD4f7oxmLr-i-99e7rgV9HGQ2UZY0QeP5Lg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
