Re: Storing data and code in a Db with LISP-like interface
Date: 29 Apr 2006 12:27:31 -0700
> > ... solution is not systematic and is missing relevant data.
> Systematic - according to which system?
Yes, I think the statement was fuzzy. The solution is systematic from Prolog's point of view. The solution is systematic from poster's point of view because he knows the relationships between x, y, z, etc. Solution is not systematic from the app/droid's point of view in that it has no systematic method of determining the relationships between x, y, z, etc unless it can follow established/standard rules or the user explicitly specifies them.
> According to Prolog documentation, it appears the following syntax: "x (y)" can only be interpretted in one way, that is "y isA x". If this is true, then so far Prolog is systematic. An andriod-like program can count on it to determine the relationship between any x and y.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prolog. Restated, in this case, the app/driod can determine the relationship between x and y in a systematic manner because there seems to be an established/standard rule.
>> ... if one andriod was built using "y x z" and the other with "z x y", the [might] misinterpret each other. Such type of misinterpretation would not occur if the andriods were built with dbd.
> Ah! A change of scenery: we now have /two/ droids wanting to communicate, and it looks like your solution to this is straight-forward sharing of data - which means they need to share a common data-structure. This would mean ad-hoc 'create' (SQL-DDL.create) is out.
:) Not necessarily. Two humans can communicate things even if the actual data is stored differently, but the processing algorithms are powerful enough to compensate for this. But yes, the more commonality, the easier it will be to get two driods communicating initially.
> Now beyond two parameters, Prolog is not systematic.
> It is up to the user to be systematic.
> Rephrased: It is up to the programmer to keep the right positions for the parameters.
You are correct, Thanks. Prolog is not unsystematic, but the app/droid lacks a systematic method of determining the relationships between x, y, z ... without user specifying it. In addition, there probably is no systematic method that allows users to specify those relationships to the app.
> > like (john, mary)
> > hate (john, bob)
> > opposite (like, hate) /// Is this possible in Prolog ????
>Yes, google for MI (meta-interpreters). They seem easy, and there is support for them in most prologs. I am not familiar with them, though.
If you are not familiar with them and can't demonstrate it, then you probably shouldn't say "Yes" so quickly. And the word "Meta" is a major no no in my book. To me it means data that is not stored using the system's fundamental data representation methodology and thus is not systematically stored, accessible, modifyable, relatable, etc.
http://www.csupomona.edu/~jrfisher/www/prolog_tutorial/3_3.html decribes meta-interpreters, however it does not seem directly related to the situation here. If you can understand and apply it to the above case, please post it.
>>> ... two different methods [were used] to relate things:
>> opposite (like,hate).
>> relationship (john,like,mary).
>> relationship (john,hate,bob).
> Neo, by dismissing implementation strategies for the wrong reasons you piss people off who do know what they are talking about.
mAsterdam, implementation strategies that are less systematic have less potential in AI-ish applications because the need to represent/process the unknown requires a very systematic method. If the reality of this pisses people off, please have them schedule a conference with God :)
> Are you serious about getting multi-discplinary collaboration?
> What of "OK. I've done my part" didn't you get?
:) Received on Sat Apr 29 2006 - 21:27:31 CEST