> Since his semantic network is explicitly mapped into his variant of > paraconsistent predicate logic, I guess the fact that he uses a "semantic > network" metaphor/data-structure is incidental to the weakness of his > reasoning/learning mechanism..
His work started with using semantic network for knowledge representation, especially for NLP. It was much later that he tried to build a "logic" for it. In this way, the logic is "customer designed" for what they have done in semantic network. > I see nothing in Sneps that deals with uncertainty robustly, and nor do I > see any mechanism capable of controlling the course of inference in > nontrivial situations... They don't have much on these issues, as far as I know. I and Shapiro both presented at IJCAI-2001's workshop on Abductive Reasoning, and his work (at http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/sneps/Bibliography/bursha01a.ps) is still basically in first-order predicate logic. When we talked after the meeting, he admitted that he also felt the problems in the traditional logic, but hadn't tried to go too far beyond it. I haven't read his "paraconsistent term logic" stuff yet. > I am impressed that they have actually taken the step of integrating their > logic-based memory, inference and learning framework with a real system with > sensors and actuators, however. Ultimately, this sort of work may reveal to > them the weakness of their cognitive mechanisms and impel them to find > improved methods... I didn't know they are moving in this direction until I got your email. This indeed makes the project much more interesting. I'll spend some time on it, though I'm afraid that a problem in logic cannot be solved by adding sensorimotor capacity. Pei > -- Ben > > ------- > To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, > please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
