opencog-dev team mailing list archive
-
opencog-dev team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #00399
Re: Rule argument validation in PLN
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Ari Heljakka
<ari.heljakka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Currently when I check to see if a rule argument is valid, I add each
>> Handle directly before calling Rule::validate.
>>
>> See line 90 of:
>>
>>
>> http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~opencog-dev/opencog/pln/annotate/1307?file_id=forwardchainer.cc-20081010072254-smr2139so8mly515-1
>>
>> That method randomly applies rules on a seed atom. The other rule
>> arguments are (currently) randomly picked and validated until a valid
>> combination is found (or it gives up). Is this a valid way of using
>> the Rules to ensure L2,L1 is invalid? (If so, I'll just track down why
>> it's saying they are valid at the moment)
>
> Yeah, I believe so.
>
>> You're BITNode screencast was extremely helpful to guide my
>> understanding. Is there any chance of getting a screencast explaining
>> a bit about the MPUnify* methods?
>
> Well, perhaps I could give it a shot. They're a mess, though.
>
> So what happened with the VersionHandle thing? Still in progress?
It's essentially done, but I still have to test it properly. I've
taken a detour with the forward chainer to try and get a demo
inference for the Singularity Summit (very simple example on word
pairs, but on lots of links to be graphically appealing).
I could hack around and get some results pretty quickly (which I'll
probably do now, since time's running out)... but would prefer to do
things correctly.
>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... [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.
[1] line 94, http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~opencog-dev/opencog/pln/annotate/1307?file_id=rule.cc-20080806022957-4ett32mb97uwc23y-10
Cheers,
J
Follow ups
References