Mindey, Atomese is not an ontology, like OpenCyc, nor is it a KR representation language, like KIF. It is a meta-language that can describe these other two languages. If you wish, you could take OpenCyc, and put it into the atomspace (this has been done before), or you could take anything in KIF, and put it into the atomspace. But you cannot go in the other direction. So this doesn't make sense. They're operating at different levels.
--linas On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:54 AM, Mindey I. <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you Nil and Linas for the detailed answers. > > but there's just a huge amount of stuff buried in C++ code that this >> would never be workable in practice. >> > > If the semantics is so tightly linked to the software, then, maybe it > would be more useful instead, to have namespaces for symbols like Links per > representation system? For example, if we have atomese `HebbianLink` > symbol, we could say that it's namespace is `atomese`, and use a `:` to > reference it, like `atomese:HebbianLink`. If it comes from another system, > say, KIF, and it's symbol `revappend`, we would reference it by > `KIF:revappend`, if OpenCyc, and it's symbol `#$colorOfObject` - as > `opencyc:#$colorOfObject`, etc. Given that each piece of software itself > defines the precise meaning of the links, probably the best that such > namespaces could do, is provide unified namespace for references these > symbols in representation systems, and to the specific code lines in > dictionaries or code repositories, or API methods that define or implement > them. > > Then, the question is, do we have such a global namespace of symbols per > reasoning system somewhere, which would allow to easily think about and > combine the different reasoning systems, or is this something to discussed > and created? What is the set of notable reasoning systems? > > > -- > 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/9134f62f-7343-4cda-9a1b-427ae6eba475%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/9134f62f-7343-4cda-9a1b-427ae6eba475%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- *"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/CAHrUA34onfvdk_TGv0DoxcVM-2XQMP6aDm5oYQ6JGKux-aPoxA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
