Why OpenCog Nodes and Links, modelling paradigm is so detached from Object Orientation, UML, Description Logics, programming? And can we introduce syntactic sugar?

[Alex]

I am learning OpenCog for months and still I am struggling to express myself in the terms of Nodes and Links? E.g. OO has this extremely handy notion of attributes (which can be simple types or complex types), but each attribute of OpenCog requires such an elaborate and not clearly documented code. 

OO and UML has those notions of association and part of one object to another object, but in OpenCog AssociativeLink is quite undefined but PartOfLink is just syntactic sugar that is not yet implemented according to the documentation.

Object model of the world is so self-obvoius and why OpenCog does not adopt it? Even ConceptNet adopts it.

Sometimes I can not believe the statement that Hanson Robotics uses OpenCog for its knowledge base, because robotic domain requires so much object-orientation, so much numerical and categorical attributes that association link, attributes, object orientation should be first-class citizens to make this knowledge management framework useable for large scale practical projects.

I am not insulting anyone (I am deeply sorry if it sounded like that, apologies), I am just wondering how to perceive all this, what are the benfits from rejection of object orientation and making some quite elusive notions? My guess is that AGI system should be generalization of OO, not rejection of it.

[Alex]

It is said in documenation http://wiki.opencog.org/w/PartOfLink that PartOfLink is syntactic sugar. Maybe we can make such syntactic sugar for every aspect of OO and so - make system more attractive for persons coming from the traditional knowledge management and engineering fields? Are there such efforts?

[Roman Treutlein]

Could you give an example of some Data you want to represent in OpenCog?

Why not just use the desugared version of the PartOfLink?

It's hard to say without seeing some examples but you seem to think on the wrong level. The hypergraph structure of OpenCog allows you to represent pretty much any knowledge you want and is a lot more general then OO.

How experienced are you with Predicate Logic and/or Probabilities?