Linas, > It would be easiest to work out some examples. Suppose your KR language > has relations for "is-a", "has-part" -- these are two relations in WordNet. > [...] But, in atomese, I can also write: > > EvaluationLink > PredicateNode "has-similar-color" > ListLink > Variable "$X" > Variable "$Y" > > Since WordNet does not have a "has similar color" relation, that's it, > game over. >
There is a database (Wikidata), that stores common relations, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:List_of_properties/all , with their multilingual definitions. I think, a common database should serve this purpose, and ideally, we should be able to obtain a list of multilingually defined relations available in a representation language, and organize the generic relations into a list of relations coming from many representation languages. And, what I mean, is, much like we have the identifiers from various sources in Wikidata (e.g., https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8495#identifiers ), I would consider the relations of metalanguages - a subject of being organized too. > or perhaps > > EvaluationLink > PredicateNode "runs on hardware made from PowerPC" > ListLink > Concept "IBM Watson" > > which would evaluate to "true" or "probably true". > In such scenario, the relation "runs on hardware made from PowerPC" would also go to the compendium of relations, and the concept "IBM Watson", actually, may have concept identifier. >From what I understand, I could use atomese links like so: EvaluationLink PredicateNode P1547 <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1547> ListLink Concept Q28817884 <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q28817884> But I could use lisp, to say smth like: (EvaluationLink (List (PredicateNode P1547 <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1547>) (ListLink (Concept Q28817884 <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q28817884>))) which would be equivalent, but less human-readable. I suppose, the indentation syntax is part of atomese, which makes it more human-readable. So, what remains that I wanted to know about "downloading" link definitions, is -- what is the full list of definitions of the generic symbols of atomese (like, *EvaluationLink, PredicateNode, ListLink, Concept, Variable*, etc.) with their definitions, and the additional syntax, like the percent sign before the variables ($X). Think of it this way: atomese is kind-of-like json, or kind-of-like > javascript, or kind-of-like prolog or kind-of-like SQL -- it is a little > bit like all of these. > Yes, I see, and grounding the EvaluationLinks, makes it possible to satisfy conditions defined in atomese. If your email asked: can I translate atomese into prolog, or atomese into > javascript, I would have said, yes, sort-of-maybe with various > difficulties. If you asked "can I translate prolog into atomese" or "can I > translate javascript into atomese" I would have said "yes, with various > difficulties". > > But instead you compared it to KIF and OpenCyc. Can random prolog or > javascript programs be converted to KIF or OpenCyc? I don't think so, not > in any normal sense. > I see now, why. So, what I'd like to "download" so to speak, is the definition of the metalanguage in a single document (e.g., in model-theoretic sense, set of symbols and rules of language, with their definitions), rather than translating it. 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/ff230903-abf3-4d6e-af19-5ab8c468dfab%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
