Re: SUO: Try coding protocols
Adam,
Thanks for the corrections of my syntax mistakes.
comments below
At 17:33 28/08/01 -0700, vous avez écrit:
>Josiane,
>
>>>Josiane,
>>>
>>>At 12:23 AM 8/24/2001 +0200, josiane caron wrote:
>>>>Adam,
>>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
>
>the syntax of the expression is wrong. It needs two closing parentheses -
>
>(exists (?X)
> (instance ?X Peg-B))
>
>However, although with that fix the expression is syntactically ok, it
>loses the information in the sentence above. There is nothing in the
>logical statements that you list which relate the action to the particular
>peg.
I was afraid of that.
>If you wish not to refer to the peg by name, but rather to existentially
>quantify it as well, you need a compound expression as follows, and you
>might as well also not reify the person or events:
In fact I am happy to start to know how to use all that, but I guess that I
do not understand every consequence of the notations.
I do not want to quantify it at the first level, and I am able to answer to
some of the questions I have asked myself when I started to do the coding.
First of all I have to do a minimal coding. Then we will see later, step by
step.
>(exists (?PER ?PEG1 ?PEG2 ?EVT ?EVP ?D)
> (and
> (instance ?PER Human)
> (instance ?EVT Removing)
> (instance ?EVP Putting)
> (instance ?D Disk)
> (destination ?EVP ?PEG2)
> (origin ?EVT ?PEG1)
> (patient ?EVT ?D)
> (patient ?EVP ?D)
> (agent ?EVT ?PER)
> (agent ?EVP ?PER)
> (after ?EVP ?EVT)
> (attribute ?D PinkColor)))
I will try to do some exercise in order to learn how to use it
>>(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)
>
>This statement needs a closing parenthesis.
O.K.
(exists (?Z)
(instance ?Z it))
> Also, you must define what the term "it" is.
I will try next, as exercice
> In a logic statement, any term is just a token or string of characters.
I know
> Each term needs definitions to give it meaning. It is also essential to
> understand the relations from SUMO that you are using. 'instance' is a
> relation defined in SUMO.
I sure I am not understand all. It is not possible without to have some
practice of it.
> It takes two arguments, the first of which is an individual, the second
> of which is a class. So, for 'it' to appear in the second position and
> be correct, it must be a class.
O.K. but I need to think a litle more about that.
>>(agent Put1 Person1)
>>(patient Take1 Disk)
>>(instance Disk1 Disk)
>>(exists (?X)
>> (instance ,X Disk)
>> (attribute ?X Pink)
>
>The statement should be
>(exists (?X)
> (instance ?X Disk)
> (attribute ?X Pink))
it is O.K. I forgot the '?' and the double parenthesis
>>(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 is a relation that takes two arguments. In the
>expression above you've given it 5 arguments. I suspect you meant
>
>(inScopeOfInterest
> Take1
> (and
> (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))
>
>same as above
O.K. but you forgot to correct me last time
>>>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 ?
>
>In your previous message you introduced a relation that you called
>'naming'. I think that you could use the relation 'documentation'
>instead. For example, instead of stating
>
>(naming Peg1 "Peg-A")
>
>you could say
>
>(documentation Peg1 "Peg-A")
O.K.
>>>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.
>
>Ok, maybe I misunderstood you before, but can you explain why (if)
>'specification-naming', 'instance-naming', and 'naming' are needed?
Adam, you know I want to modelize my protocols. I know it is not possible
to do it all things at a time.
At a first level, I know that it is necessary to code at propositional
level, and to see how it will work there.
Here I have an ultime question to ask you in case of the following example:
10 - I take the pink disc I put it on the green disc
42 31 0 -----> 421 3 0
(instance Person10 Human)
(instance Take10 Removing)
(instance Put10 Putting)
(origin Take10 Peg-B)
(patient Take10 Disk1)
(agent Take10 Person10)
(destination Put10 Peg-A)
(patient Put10 Disk1)
(agent Take10 Person10)
(after Put10 Take10)
(inScopeOfInterest
Person1
(penetrates Peg-C Disk2))
(inScopeOfInterest
Take10
(and
(on Disk4 Peg-A)
(on Disk2 Disk4)
(on Disk3 Peg-B)
(on Disk1 Disk3)))
(inScopeOfInterest
Put10
(and
(on Disk4 Peg-A)
(on Disk2 Disk4)
(on Disk1 Disk2)
(on Disk3 Peg-B)))
This would be the coding of the first level. But at the same time and at
physical level disk1 is moved on Disk2 which is on pegA.
Te question is:
Is the coding sufficient to account of this fact ? (It depends of the
status of 'inScopeOfInterest' in the whole coding)
Because here there are two physical entities : pegA and disk 2 on pegA. The
boundary between physical entities and the others is not so clear. And I do
not yet know what is really coded here.
This was the basis of all my later questions (and then I was carried away
in all sort of coding)
-----------------
I have another question
I like to introduce some properties of the physical state: for example the
state is in the top right part of the triangle (the triangle is the set of
every possible states). I think it is better to introduce it at another
level than at the first level ?
----------------------------
At another level there is an important property - it is to give a
differenciation in the way in which events are linked. For example to
differenciatiate the two following utterances
I take the pink disk I put it on pegB
I take the pink disk I put the pink disk on pegB
In the first there is an anaphora
In the second there is only the repetition of 'the pik disk'
This case is not frequent in Olivier protocols, but generally it occurs
frequently. It is basic for the interpretation (differenciation between
automatic and controlled processes)
In Olivier we can find this occurrence where thereis anaphora between the
two first events and not for the third
9 - Then I take the pink yellow disc I put it on the column b
(4 2) (1) (3)
So that I can put the green disc on the column c #2
(4) (1) ( 3 2 )
This question is important because I was asking myself if we have to
consider two events 'removing and putting' in the same proposition or if
one have to consider a first propsition with the event 'removing' and
another with the event'putting' and then at a second level to consider a
link between these two propositions, with at a third level a
differenciation between these links
----------------------------
I think I have to wait for your answer before to express the other levels
of coding
As soon as I have clear things in my head I will code trial1 and others and
also some other protocols.
Sincerely Yours
Josiane