Re: SUO: Try coding protocols
Adam,
First I want to answer to this:
At 13:22 24/08/01 -0700, Adam wrote :
>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).
O.K. I thought is was. But after I forgot and it is sure that I am not yet
familiar with. I will be more careful
So all the suggestions I did to John Bateman are wrong.
>Josiane,
>
>At 12:23 AM 8/24/2001 +0200, josiane caron wrote:
>>Adam,
>>
>> 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"
I don't realy understand what you mean by 'avoid naming the instance' ?
Nevertheless I try to do something.
The example can be wrote in this way, could you tell me if it is right ?
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)
(exists (?X)
(instance ?X Peg-B
(exists (?Y)
(instance ?Y disk-B)
Here the problem is that the destination peg is peg-B at physical level.
but at metal level (is it that you call abstract ?) it is 'disk-B', i e the
disk which is moved to the destination peg. It is what I called a
disk-piton. But that it is the story.
In order to kept the information in the codage, can I write (exists (?X)
and (exists (?Y) ?
if no I will simplifly; if yes I would like to write that disk-B = peg-B
at physical level
It seem important because here the concept-disk and the concept-peg are
linked. It is that that I want to code in this complicated case.
Now I continue the example:
(origin Take1 Peg-A)
(patient Put1 Disk)
(exists (?Z )
(instance ?Z it)
(agent Put1 Person1)
(patient Take1 Disk)
(instance Disk1 Disk)
(exists (?X)
(instance ,X Disk)
(attribute ?X Pink)
(agent Take1 Person1)
(after Put1 Take1)
(inScopeOfInterest
Person1
(penetrates Peg-B Disk1))
(inScopeOfInterest
Take1
(on Disk4 Peg-A)
(on Disk3 Disk4)
(on Disk2 Disk3)
(on Disk1 Disk2))
(inScopeOfInterest
Put1
(on Disk4 Peg-A)
(on Disk3 Disk4)
(on Disk2 Disk3)
(on Disk1 Peg-B))
>You could use the 'documentation' relation instead of having to create a
>new relation called naming.
I don't understand this: I found the documention which gives an overview of
the SUMO. It's fine. But I don't understand how to use it 'instead of
having to create a new relation called naming. Sorry, could you explain me ?
>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.
I don't want to avoid creating a token in a logic expression to signify a
concept. I already know that it works like that.
I need to specify the linguistic expression of the concepts because it
introduces a relation with another concept and I guess I need it later at
mental level.
>> 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
Yes I mean these word, but perhaps it is not useful to consider them now. i
am O.K.
Thanks for your help.
Josiane
_________________________________________________
Josiane Caron-Pargue
Laboratoire Langage et Cognition LaCo, UMR 6096
Maison des Sciences de l'Homme et de la Société, MSHS
99 Avenue du Recteur Pineau, F-86022 Poitiers cedex
tel bur 05 49 45 46 23, fax 05 49 45 46 16
tel secr. 05 49 45 46 10, 05 49 45 46 13
http://www.mshs.univ-poitiers.fr/laco/
josiane.caron@mshs.univ-poitiers.fr
_________________________________________________