On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 12:13 AM, Ari Heljakka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> From my understanding of the code, the validate methods don't actually >> >> check the order of < L2, L1 > is invalid. Just that the types are >> correct since it only checks one handle/Vertex at a time and I don't >> see how it would share any binding information between calls to >> weak_atom... > > Correct.
Would it not make sense to try and validate the order and that they fit. Or would this be too costly? >> [1] whereas the o2iMeta functions DO ensure that the >> shared atoms of links are correct, but I could be completely wrong. >> I'm confused about whether these output-to-input functions can be used >> for forward chaining too. > > o2i function do check the variable consistency, but the method for doing > that is rather tightly integrated with the whole binding scheme. > > Basically, you don't actually check for consistency in the o2i approach at > all; instead, you start out with the correct formula with variables (eg. > DeductionRule($1=>$2, $2->$3) and then create a new instance of the whole > Rule (or rather, the BITNode that embodies the Rule) by binding one of the > variables to some Atom, eg. resulting in DeductionRule($1=>MyAtom, > MyAtom->$3). This way, consistency is guaranteed. This does cost space and > time for cloning the BITNodes, but then again ensuring consistency across > large trees by other means is a hairy problem. So you're saying that in order to check the consistency we need to wrap the Rule in a BITNode and use that? Does that BITNode then represent the result of the rule application (sorry if this is exceedingly basic, I just want to confirm that my understanding is correct)? If the BITNode is the result, then for forward chaining, could I just make a BITNode with the rule but without a specific target and still use it for checking rule variable consistency? > I believe an analogic solution can be used for fw chaining, but it's > possible you can find something else, too, which is simpler and works for fw > chaining only. I think it'd be preferable to try and reuse the same code for forward chaining if it is possible. That requires me getting a better grasp of things - but I need to do that anyway. J _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~opencog-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~opencog-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
