Re: SUO: Vote 2001-02: IFF Foundation Ontology
Josiane,
Here's an attempt at a simple SUMO formalization.
At 11:59 PM 8/18/2001 +0200, josiane caron wrote:
>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
(subclass Peg SelfConnectedObject) ; new term
(subclass Disk SelfConnectedObject) ; new term
(instance Pink ColorProperty) ; new term
(instance Green ColorProperty) ; new term
(instance Peg-A Peg)
(instance Peg-B Peg)
(instance Peg-C Peg)
(instance Disk1 Disk)
(attribute Disk1 Pink)
(instance Disk2 Disk)
(attribute Disk2 Green)
(instance Disk3 Disk)
(instance Disk4 Disk)
(larger Disk2 Disk1)
(larger Disk3 Disk2)
(larger Disk4 Disk3)
(on Disk1 Disk2)
(on Disk2 Disk3)
(on Disk3 Disk4)
(penetrates Peg-A Disk1)
(penetrates Peg-B Disk1)
(penetrates Peg-C Disk1)
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-------
>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 ) ( )
; below I've created two events, a taking and a putting.
; It might be better to have a composite event.
(instance Person1 Human)
(instance Take1 Removing)
(instance Put1 Putting)
(destination Put1 Peg-B)
(origin Take1 Peg-A)
(patient Put1 Disk1)
(agent Put1 Person1)
(patient Take1 Disk1)
(agent Take1 Person1)
(after Put1 Take1)
(inScopeOfInterest
Person1
(penetrates Peg-C Disk2))
>2 - So I take the green disk and I put it on c #3
> (4 3) (1) ( 2 )
(instance Take2 Removing)
(instance Put2 Putting)
(destination Put2 Peg-C)
(origin Take2 Peg-B)
(patient Put2 Disk2)
(agent Put2 Person2)
(patient Take2 Disk2)
(agent Take2 Person2)
(after Put2 Take2)
Note that this required only creating the notions of Peg, Disk, Green and
Pink. All the other terms are already defined in SUMO.
Adam
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>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
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571