Naively, it would be PutLink, except that PutLink cannot work with values,
For that to work, we would need to invent some kind of GetValueLink that
would work like this:
GetValueLink
SomeAtom
PredicateNode "some key"
and when evaluated, it would look for the key on SomeAtom, and if the key
was there, and if the value was an atom, it would return that atom. In
this case, the SomeAtom would be the SatisfactionLink.
For your example it would be
PutLink
ListLink
Concept "I"
Concept "like"
Variable "X"
GetValueLink
SatisfactionLink ...
PredicateNode ....
Not sure if this is a good idea or not. I'm sort-of getting tired of
inventing new atom types to solve every problem. On the other hand, we've
just barely started exploring all the different ways that we might want to
use values .... it would be nice to be able to pass them around in
atomese...
--linas
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Leung Man Hin <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Hi Linas,
>
> Additionally, is there a good way to map those stored groundings, or just
> one or two of them, to another graph? Just like the graph-rewriting part of
> a BindLink.
>
> For example if we have stored the groundings of $x and $y from:
>
> SatisfactionLink
> EvaluationLink
> Predicate "foobar"
> ListLink
> Variable "$x"
> Variable "$y"
>
> and we want to put the value of $x to, say something like:
>
> ListLink
> Concept "I"
> Concept "like"
> Variable "$x"
>
> and both the SatisfactionLink and ListLink above are the implicant of
> an ImplicationLink, what would be a nice solution for this?
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 12:28 AM, Linas Vepstas <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Amen,
>>
>> I just created and committed some code that stores SatsifactionLink
>> groundings in a generic way. If you use this, I think it makes the
>> OpenPsiImplicator.cc obsolete/not-needed. An example can be found at
>> https://github.com/opencog/atomspace/blob/master/examples/pa
>> ttern-matcher/satisfaction.scm
>>
>> If this does not quite fit your needs, let me know. If you need more
>> things, let me know, I'll see if I can find some nice solutions for them.
>>
>> --linas
>>
>>
>> --
>> *"The problem is not that artificial intelligence will get too smart and
>> take over the world," computer scientist Pedro Domingos writes, "the
>> problem is that it's too stupid and already has." *
>>
>
>
--
*"The problem is not that artificial intelligence will get too smart and
take over the world," computer scientist Pedro Domingos writes, "the
problem is that it's too stupid and already has." *
--
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/CAHrUA34CF%2BwHnvzQsU5YRXhw5i-T8EZbRV_covOxNUa7%3DTx_-g%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
