Re: SUO: Try coding protocols
Josiane,
At 12:23 AM 8/24/2001 +0200, josiane caron wrote:
>Adam,
> Thank you very much for your help. I try to do the same for the
> begining of the first trial of Olivier: for sentences 1, 2 and 4 it is
> rather the same, but for utterance 3 (then I can take again) I do not
> know how to do (In fact I am lost in the ontology)
>
> Furthermore I tried to introduce the starting state of the
> problem that I have linked to the event 'take' and the destination state
> that I have linked to the event 'put'. It is right ?
That sounds good to me.
> (I have change the notations by use of Yang Yun's suggestions)
>
> Moreover I would have like to code the formulation of the disk
> and of the peg:
>In example 1: 'the pink disk'
>you have introduced the notion of attribute, but if I use this form I find
>it is not right. It 'll give us 'the pink disk1' instead of ' the pink disk'
>In fact I need to know both concept and the occurrence of the concept
>(type and occurrence). I proposed a re-writing for sentence 1, below (I
>left sentences 2 and 4 wirth your writing). But the problem is I need some
>different formulation for 'instance'; I wrote something by introducing the
>word 'naming'; what can I do ?
If you want to avoid naming the instance, you could state
(exists (?X)
(instance ?X Disk)
(attribute ?X Pink))
; "There exists something that is a disk and is pink"
You could use the 'documentation' relation instead of having to create a
new relation called naming.
However, I'm not sure why you would want to avoid creating a token in a
logic expression to signify a concept. In fact, in most deduction systems
even the existentially quantified term would get automatically turned into
a skolem function which names the concept. So, I don't see why your
proposed relations of 'specification-naming', 'instance-naming', and
'naming' are needed.
As a separate issue, I should point out that these statements are not
English comments, or an informal notation. Spaces, capitalization,
argument order are all significant, so
(in scope of interest
Person1
(penetrates Peg-B Disk1))
is not a meaningful expression because this uses a predicate 'in' that
takes 5 arguments.
(inScopeOfInterest
Person1
(penetrates Peg-B Disk1))
is a meaningful statement in SUO-KIF and SUMO because the relation
inScopeOfInterest is defined on two arguments, the first of which is an
'Agent' and the second of which is an 'Entity' (and a forumla is a subclass
of Entity).
>In the same sentence I encounter the same problem with the denomination
>'diskb' for the 'peg B'
>(I put a line / in example 1 below before the line I have changed)
> Furthermore there are the problems of connectives in 3 and 4.
By the 'connectives' do you mean the word 'again'? Like 'so', 'then' or
many other English utterances, this word (used in this way) may not have an
actual meaning in terms of what is being communicated, but rather functions
to regulate the act of communication itself. 'Again' just emphasizes that
this is an action that has been performed before. So,
"I hit the drum."
"I hit the drum again."
The 'again' just lets the listener know that there is no mistake in the
utterance. The sentence really means exactly what it says. So, the
appearance of 'again' would not change the logical expression that can be
translated from the surface natural language form.
Adam
> I wait for your answer and suggestion.
> Cheers
> Josiane
>
>olivier - trial 1 -
>
>1 - I take the pink disc I put it on the disc b #2
> (4 3 2 ) (1) ( )
>4321 0 0 ----> 432 1 0
>
>(instance Person1 Human)
>(instance Take1 Removing)
>(instance Put1 Putting)
>/ (destination Put1 Peg)
>/ (instance Peg-B Peg)
>/ (naming- Disk-Destination-Peg Peg)
>/ (specification-naming Disk-Peg-B)
>/ (instance-naming Disk-B)
>(origin Take1 Peg-A)
>/ (patient Put1 Disk)
>/ (instance Disk1 Disk)
>/ (naming pronoum Disk)
>/ (instance-naming it Disk)
>(agent Put1 Person1)
>/ (patient Take1 Disk)
>/ (instance Disk1 Disk)
>/ (naming Colored-Disk Disk)
>/ (instance-naming Pink Colored-Disk)
>(agent Take1 Person1)
> (after Put1 Take1)
>
>(in scope of interest
>Person1
>(penetrates Peg-B Disk1))
>
>(on scope of interest
>Take1
>(on Disk4 Peg-A)
>(on Disk3 Disk4)
>(on Disk2 Disk3)
>(on Disk1 Disk2))
>
> (on scope of interest
>Put1
>(on Disk4 Peg-A)
>(on Disk3 Disk4)
>(on Disk2 Disk3)
>(on Disk1 Peg-B))
>
>
>2 - I take the green disc I put it on on c
> (4 3) (1) ( 2 )
>432 1 0 ----> 43 1 2
>
>(instance Person2 Human)
>(instance Take2 Removing)
>(instance Put2 Putting)
>(destination Put2 Peg-C)
>(origin Take2 Peg-A)
>(patient Put2 Disk2)
>(agent Put2 Person2)
>(patient Take2 Disk2)
>(agent Take2 Person1)
>(after Put2 Take2)
>
>(in scope of interest
>Person1
>(penetrates Peg-C Disk2))
>
>(on scope of interest
>Take2
>(on Disk4 Peg-A)
>(on Disk3 Disk4)
>(on Disk2 Disk3)
>(on Disk1 Peg-B))
>
> (on scope of interest
>Put1
>(on Disk4 Peg-A)
>(on Disk3 Disk4)
>(on Disk2 Peg-C)
>(on Disk1 Peg-B))
>
>
>3 - Then euh #4 I can take again
>
>
>(instance Person3 Human)
>(instance Take3 Removing)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>4 - At the time I take again the pink disc I put it on the green disc
> (4 3) () (2 1)
>43 1 2 ---> 43 0 21
>
>(instance Person4 Human)
>(instance Take4 Removing)
>(instance Put4 Putting)
>(origin Take4 Peg-B)
>(patient Take4 Disk1)
>(agent Take4 Person4)
>(destination Put4 Peg-C)
> (patient Put4 Disk1)
>(agent Put4 Person4)
>(after Put4 Take4)
>
>(in scope of interest
>Person4
>(penetrates Peg-C Disk1))
>
>(on scope of interest
>Take4
>(on Disk4 Peg-A)
>(on Disk3 Disk4)
>(on Disk2 Peg-C)
>(on Disk1 Peg-B))
>
> (on scope of interest
>Put4
>(on Disk4 Peg-A)
>(on Disk3 Disk4)
>(on Disk2 Peg-C)
>(on Disk1 Disk2))
>
>
>At 12:08 21/08/01 -0700, vous avez écrit:
>>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
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571