> 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. >
For what I understand, it's an evolving generalized hypergraph database, linking hardware systems, not just software and concept definitions as hyperedges, and thus, having something else than itself to map its hyperedges is not readily possible, would that be a good way to put it? If not, what makes atomese unrepresentable in other 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. > How would things like this be addressed in atomspace? What would be the address for OpenCyc in it, or what about the address of IBM's Watson in it? A hardware I/O system is also a relation to me. Mindey -- 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/7e033647-faca-4072-999d-31b9f206de6b%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
