Re: SUO: Vote 2001-02: IFF Foundation Ontology
Robert,
Could you help me to apply this to some sentence of my verbal
protocols ? I give you two sentences below, which correspond to the first
two steps of the problem solving process
-----------------------------------------
for memory: problem and notations:
------------------------------------------
a, b, c are the three pegs
pink disk = tiny top disk (disk 1)
green disk = disk 2 larger than disk 1
disk 3 is larger than disk 2
disk 4 is the larger bottom disk
all disks are on peg a at the beginning of the problem and the goal is to
move them to c, one disk at a time and never a big disk on a smaller disk
#3 means that the duration of a pause is of three seconds
(432) (1) ( ) means that disks 4,3, 2 are on peg a, disk 1 is on peg b,
and peg c is empty
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
the two first sentences of the protocol
-----------------------------------
1 - Then I take the pink disk to put it on b so that after I can put the
green disk on c
(432) ( 1 ) ( )
2 - So I take the green disk and I put it on c #3
(4 3) (1) ( 2 )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert,
I will try to do it tomorrow but it will be easier if I have some help at
the beginning and also I am afraid to do a lot of mistakes.
Cheers
Josiane
t 12:21 18/08/01 -0700, vous avez écrit:
>Corrections, additions and comments (see below).
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Robert E. Kent" <rekent@ontologos.org>
>To: "Adam Pease" <apease@ks.teknowledge.com>
>Cc: "SUO" <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
>Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 4:42 PM
>Subject: Re: SUO: Vote 2001-02: IFF Foundation Ontology
>
>$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>
> > There are six *entity instances* (objects, individuals or particulars)
>
>Correction:
>
>There are eight *entity instances* (objects, individuals or particulars)
>
>$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>
> > signature_L(R) : arity_L(R) -> index_L
>
>Correction:
>
> signature_L(R) : arity_L(R) -> entity-type_L
>
>for all R in relation-type_L
>
>$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>
>Also, perhaps I should add the two assertions
>
> (= (lang$valence example-language) example-valence)
> (= (lang$arity example-language) example-arity)
>
>to the initial syntactic declarations, and the following valence and arity
>declarations before the signature declarations. The valence of a language
>maps a relation type to a natural number, the cardinality of its arity. And,
>as mentioned before, the arity function of a language maps a relation type
>to a subset of indices.
>__________
>
>Here are the valences for the relation type signatures:
>
>(= (example-valence performed-by) 2)
>(= (example-valence has-name) 2)
>(= (example-valence object-destroyed) 2)
>(= (example-valence contains-substance) 2)
>(= (example-valence participant) 2)
>(= (example-valence before) 2)
>__________
>
>Here are the arities for the relation type signatures:
>
>((example-arity performed-by) e)
>((example-arity performed-by) a)
>((example-arity has-name) o)
>((example-arity has-name) n)
>((example-arity object-destroyed) e)
>((example-arity object-destroyed) o)
>((example-arity contains-substance) o1)
>((example-arity contains-substance) o2)
>((example-arity participant) e)
>((example-arity participant) a)
>((example-arity before) e1)
>((example-arity before) e2)
>__________
>
>Here are the actual declarations for the relation type signatures:
>
>(= ((example-signature performed-by) e) event)
>(= ((example-signature performed-by) a) agent)
>(= ((example-signature has-name) o) object)
>(= ((example-signature has-name) n) name)
>(= ((example-signature object-destroyed) e) event)
>(= ((example-signature object-destroyed) o) object)
>(= ((example-signature contains-substance) o1) object)
>(= ((example-signature contains-substance) o2) object)
>(= ((example-signature participant) e) event)
>(= ((example-signature participant) a) agent)
>(= ((example-signature before) e1) event)
>(= ((example-signature before) e2) event)
>
>$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>
> > As I mentioned above, we could also give examples of declaring and
> > manipulating instances, both entity and relation, in the IFF Model Theory
> > Ontology -- thus building a model, not just a language. Also, we could
>give
> > examples of 1st-order interpretations.
>
>As further explanation, perhaps I should mention that this IFF model, which
>consists of two classifications (one for entities and one for relations) and
>two hypergraphs (one for instances and one for types), corresponds closely
>to the traditional description of a model on the "Components of Logic" slide
>#7 of my SUO Workshop presentation
>[http://reliant.teknowledge.com/IJCAI01/Kent.ppt] or the attachment
>[http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/suo/email/pdf00003.pdf]. Just transform the
>interpretation (evaluation) maps to classifications, one for entities and
>one for relations.
>
>Robert E. Kent
>rekent@ontologos.org
>