embedded knowledge

[Ben Goertzel]

Nil, Linas, etc.,

Amen suggested an alternate approach to representing embedded truth
values, which may be better than our previous suggestions, due to
reusing ContextLink rather than introducing additional mechanisms...
see

http://wiki.opencog.org/wikihome/index.php/Claims_and_contexts#An_Alternate_Approach

-- Ben

--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
http://goertzel.org

Super-benevolent super-intelligence is the thought the Global Brain is
currently struggling to form...

[Nil Geisweiller]

Hi,

haven't read that page yet, just starting reading Amen examples, but the
following caught my attention

ContextLink <1,1>
AtTimeNode "3PM, June 16, 2016"
Inheritance women beautiful

why not just say

AtTimeLink <1,1>
TimeNode "3PM, June 16, 2016"
Inheritance women beautiful

?

Besides I think the use of ContextLink isn't strictly correct, unless
you see TimeNode T as a concept containing all things that happened at T
(which is very elegant, if consistent with the rest, I don't know).

Nil

[Nil Geisweiller]

Ohhhh! I see, AtTimeNode is exactly that! It is, as it says, a sugary
syntax for it...

So, yes the use of ContextLink seems correct, but then again, why not
using an AtTimeLink directly...? Temporal PLN reasoning should be able
to carry out all these transformations (from AtTimeLink to ContextLink)
if necessary, so...

Anyway, I'd better read the whole thing carefully before discussing it
further...

Nil

[Nil Geisweiller]

Although I think it shows how confusing the name AtTimeNode is, better be

TimeConceptNode

or TimePredicateNode for a predicate.

isn't it?

Nil

On 06/17/2016 09:07 AM, Nil Geisweiller wrote:

[Nil Geisweiller]

Geez,

On 06/17/2016 09:15 AM, Nil Geisweiller wrote:
> Although I think it shows how confusing the name AtTimeNode is, better be
>
> TimeConceptNode

AtTimeConceptNode

AtTimePredicateNode

are even better.

Nil

[Ben Goertzel]

AtTimeConceptNode is basically what is intended, i.e.

"the set of all entities and events in their intersection with the
specified time point or time interval"

which is different than a TimeNode, which refers to the actual moment of time...

One could either distinguish

AtTimeConceptNode

from

AtTimeIntervalConceptNode

or else just use

AtTimeConceptNode

and let it refer to either a time-point or a time-interval
(overloaded, in a way)

-- Ben

[Nil Geisweiller]

Cool, I've added the following links in the wiki

http://wiki.opencog.org/wikihome/index.php/AtTimeConceptLink
http://wiki.opencog.org/wikihome/index.php/AtTimePredicateLink

> and let it refer to either a time-point or a time-interval
> (overloaded, in a way)

Since AtTimeLink accepts both TimeIntervalLink and TimeNode it follows
from the definitions of AtTimeConceptLink and AtTimePredicateLink that
they may use time intervals as well.

Nil

[Nil Geisweiller]

Ben, Amen,

On 06/17/2016 08:22 AM, Ben Goertzel wrote:

> Nil, Linas, etc.,
>
> Amen suggested an alternate approach to representing embedded truth
> values, which may be better than our previous suggestions, due to
> reusing ContextLink rather than introducing additional mechanisms...
> see
>
> http://wiki.opencog.org/wikihome/index.php/Claims_and_contexts#An_Alternate_Approach

I read a whole page. But I don't understand, what is the domain of

SatisfyingSet
$X
Evaluation
hope
Aaron
$X

?

I mean what are the $Xs?

I would assume that they are

Evaluation eat@456 Ben lunch

etc.

But then why do you use a ContextLink? Wouldn't that be instead

MemberLink
SatisfyingSet
$X
Evaluation
hope
Aaron
$X
Evaluation eat@456 Ben lunch

Or

Inheritance
SetLink
Evaluation eat@456 Ben lunch
SatisfyingSet
$X
Evaluation
hope
Aaron
$X
?

Also I would think that since eat@456 is a particular instance, then it
suffices to restrict the knowledge around it, so again why a context link?

Thanks,
Nil

>
> -- Ben
>

[Ben Goertzel]

> I read a whole page. But I don't understand, what is the domain of
>
> SatisfyingSet
> $X
> Evaluation
> hope
> Aaron
> $X
>
> ?
>
> I mean what are the $Xs?

They are relationship

> But then why do you use a ContextLink? Wouldn't that be instead
>
> MemberLink
> SatisfyingSet
> $X
> Evaluation
> hope
> Aaron
> $X
> Evaluation eat@456 Ben lunch
>
> Or
>
> Inheritance
> SetLink
> Evaluation eat@456 Ben lunch
> SatisfyingSet
> $X
> Evaluation
> hope
> Aaron
> $X

Aren't these forms equivalent?


ben

[Nil Geisweiller]

On 06/17/2016 03:24 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
>> I read a whole page. But I don't understand, what is the domain of
>>
>> SatisfyingSet
>> $X
>> Evaluation
>> hope
>> Aaron
>> $X
>>
>> ?
>>
>> I mean what are the $Xs?
>
> They are relationship

But relationship of what exactly? Representing what Aaron hopes?

>
>> But then why do you use a ContextLink? Wouldn't that be instead
>>
>> MemberLink
>> SatisfyingSet
>> $X
>> Evaluation
>> hope
>> Aaron
>> $X
>> Evaluation eat@456 Ben lunch
>>
>> Or
>>
>> Inheritance
>> SetLink
>> Evaluation eat@456 Ben lunch
>> SatisfyingSet
>> $X
>> Evaluation
>> hope
>> Aaron
>> $X
>
> Aren't these forms equivalent?

These 2 representations are equivalent indeed, but they certainly are
not equivalent to

ContextLink
SatisfyingSet

Evaluation
hope
Aaron
$X
Evaluation eat@456 Ben lunch

As this would supposedly (which I'm not even sure) be equivalent to
(according to
http://wiki.opencog.org/wikihome/index.php/ContextLink#Definition)

Evaluation
eat@456
List
And Ben <Aaron-hopes>
And lunch <Aaron-hopes>

where <Aaron-hopes> is SatisfyingSet Evaluation hope ...

But then I'm failing to see what would be the intersection of Ben and
<Aaron-hopes> (as well as lunch and <Aaron-hopes>) if the <Aaron-hopes>
are things like

Evaluation eat@456 Ben lunch

it really makes no sense.

What would make sense would be to consider as domain something like all
possible traces of the universe (maybe traces of atomspaces or something
like that) and consider that Ben at a certain time T is a certain subset
of these traces (where the pattern corresponding to Ben is present at
Time T in these traces, so (AtTime T Ben) is a random variable with is
true only if a certain trace happens to contain Ben's pattern at time
T). And <Aaron-hopes> is another subset of traces corresponding to
everything that Aaron hopes will happen at time T. Then we can intersect
them.

That is why I'm asking what is $X is <Aaron-hopes>.

Of course in this way of doing things we would rarely use EvaluationLink
at all, instead we would mostly use Inheritance or Implication, because
you cannot possibly enumerate potentially infinitely long traces.

However EvaluationLink would still be useful when the system is
operating at a higher level of thought, somewhat possibly disconnected
from the sensors, but that could be reconnected via bridge knowledge.

So I suppose what we want is to connect linguistic semantics (where the
domain is ???) with experiential semantics (where the domain is traces
of the universe). Or perhaps we want to bypass this experiential
semantics (though when OpenPsi need to take a decision, it really needs
a way or another to get back to this experimential semantics). So I'm
really confused. Do we want relex2logic to be the
linguistic->experiential bridge? Or does relex2logic is supposed to do
something else?

Nil

>
>
> ben
>

[Ben Goertzel]

Nil,

The main point here is to be able to refer to the truth values that an
Atom A may hold in various possible worlds, without (as a side effect
of doing this reference) modifying the truth value that A holds in the
Atomspace

So for instance if we have

Inheritance Ben sane <.8>

we still want to be able to say

"Bob thinks Ben is totally insane"

but we can't just say

Evaluation
PredicateNode "thinks"
ConceptNode "Bob"
Inheritance Ben sane <0>

because the <0> then ends up on the link (Inheritance Ben sane)

We used to deal with this by having truth value versions in Composite
TruthValue, but Linas got rid of CompositeTV some time ago... so we
need another way...

One way is to say

Evaluation
PredicateNode "thinks"
ConceptNode "Bob"
EvaluationLink
PredicateNode "hasTruthValue"
Inheritance Ben sane
TruthValueNode "0"


but that seems clunky. Saying

Evaluation
PredicateNode "thinks"
ConceptNode "Bob"
ContextAnchorNode "123"

EmbeddedTruthValueLink <0>
ContextAnchorNode "123"
Inheritance Ben sane


is another way... We could also do

Evaluation
PredicateNode "thinks"
ConceptNode "Bob"
EmbeddedTruthValueLink <0>
Inheritance Ben sane

I suppose...

What Amen suggested yesterday is that

ContextLink <0>
SatisfyingSet
EvaluationLink
PredicateNode "thinks"
ConceptNode "Bob"
$X
Inheritance Ben sane

would have the same meaning. The idea, informally put, is that

"Bob thinks Ben is insane"

means

" (The Ben in Bob's thoughts) has the property of (insanity as
understood in Bob's thoughts)"


So getting back to the other example...

These 2 representations are equivalent indeed, but they certainly are
not equivalent to

ContextLink
SatisfyingSet
Evaluation
hope
Aaron
$X
Evaluation eat@456 Ben lunch

As this would supposedly (which I'm not even sure) be equivalent to
(according to http://wiki.opencog.org/wikihome/index.php/ContextLink#Definition)

Evaluation
eat@456
List
And Ben <Aaron-hopes>
And lunch <Aaron-hopes>

Wouldn't it be

Evaluation
And eat@456 <Aaron-hopes>

List
And Ben <Aaron-hopes>
And lunch <Aaron-hopes>

meaning that if we restrict attention to things as they exist in the
alternate universe consisting of what Aaron hopes for, then we are
looking at "Ben eats lunch" in its restricted existence within this
alternate universe...

In general, if one has


R( (ContextAnchorNode [1]) )

EmbeddedTruthValueLink <s>
ContextAnchorNode [1]
L

where R is any logical relationship and L is any Atom

then the meaning is that, within the (fuzzy) scope of things that satisfy

R($x)

the truth value of L is <s>

So then, this seems equivalent to

ContextLink <s>
SatisfyingSet
R
L


-- at least this was Amen's idea, which makes sense to me at the moment...

-- Ben

[Nil Geisweiller]

Ben,

On 06/18/2016 09:15 AM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
> Evaluation
> PredicateNode "thinks"
> ConceptNode "Bob"
> ContextAnchorNode "123"
>
> EmbeddedTruthValueLink <0>
> ContextAnchorNode "123"
> Inheritance Ben sane
>
>
> is another way... We could also do
>
> Evaluation
> PredicateNode "thinks"
> ConceptNode "Bob"
> EmbeddedTruthValueLink <0>
> Inheritance Ben sane
>
> I suppose...

No, this wouldn't work because you wouldn't be able to express that Jane
thinks that Ben is sane without overwriting Bob's believe.

>
> What Amen suggested yesterday is that
>
> ContextLink <0>
> SatisfyingSet
> EvaluationLink
> PredicateNode "thinks"
> ConceptNode "Bob"
> $X
> Inheritance Ben sane
>
> would have the same meaning.

No, it wouldn't, for the reason I explained (the domain of X is not
compatible with that idea). But I think I know how to express that, will
write an email about it.

> The idea, informally put, is that
>
> "Bob thinks Ben is insane"
>
> means
>
> " (The Ben in Bob's thoughts) has the property of (insanity as
> understood in Bob's thoughts)"

Agreed, another way to put it is that Bob sees the universe as harboring
an insane Ben.

You're correct, in the idea, in the formalism I think we need another
construct.

>
> In general, if one has
>
>
> R( (ContextAnchorNode [1]) )
>
> EmbeddedTruthValueLink <s>
> ContextAnchorNode [1]
> L
>
> where R is any logical relationship and L is any Atom
>
> then the meaning is that, within the (fuzzy) scope of things that satisfy
>
> R($x)
>
> the truth value of L is <s>
>
> So then, this seems equivalent to
>
> ContextLink <s>
> SatisfyingSet
> R
> L
>
>
> -- at least this was Amen's idea, which makes sense to me at the moment...

I agree with this, except that again the domains need to intersect, and
in these examples it's not really at all.

More later,
Nil

[AmeBel]

Hi Nil,

What do you mean by, "... domains need to intersect, and  in these examples it's not really at all. "? I mean what are the domains?

[Nil Geisweiller]

Hi Amen,

On 06/21/2016 09:59 AM, AmeBel wrote:
> > So then, this seems equivalent to
> >
> > ContextLink <s>
> > SatisfyingSet
> > R
> > L
> >
> >
> > -- at least this was Amen's idea, which makes sense to me at the
> moment...
>
>
> Hi Nil,
>
> What do you mean by, "... domains need to intersect, and in these
> examples it's not really at all. "? I mean what are the domains?
>

I intend to write an email discussing that in depth, I'm just not sure
whether to write it today or move forward with the PLN|NLP demos...

Nil

[Linas Vepstas]

Gahh, Did any of you read anything that is written on the rest of that wiki page?

Amen's suggestion seems to have nothing at all to do with the general problem of representing claims and context, it rather had to do with how to represent time, and as such, we need a seprate wikipage for "how to represent time in opencog". 

The claims-and-context page already outlines all of the major approaches, and from what I can tell with this email, nothing new is being proposed tthat is not already written down there.  Right?  Or is something actually new being proposed? (other than how to represent time?)

--linas

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "opencog" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to opencog+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ope...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CACYTDBc_S-3NAxw%3DCs3wUqU9KGGPBOVMhJ2hdEMXEqUZkUp6jw%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Linas Vepstas]

OK, so ... 

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 6:35 AM, 'Nil Geisweiller' via opencog <ope...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Ben, Amen,

On 06/17/2016 08:22 AM, Ben Goertzel wrote:

Nil, Linas, etc.,

Amen suggested an alternate approach to representing embedded truth
values, which may be better than our previous suggestions, due to
reusing ContextLink rather than introducing additional mechanisms...
see

http://wiki.opencog.org/wikihome/index.php/Claims_and_contexts#An_Alternate_Approach

I read a whole page. But I don't understand, what is the domain of

    SatisfyingSet
        $X
        Evaluation
           hope
           Aaron
           $X

?

I mean what are the $Xs?

The $Xis can be anything at all, the entire universe of all things.  More narrowly, the satisfying set is true only if $X is a thing that Aaron hopes.  Of course, we don't know what those things might be, at least, not yet.

I would assume that they are

Evaluation eat@456 Ben lunch

That would indeed be one thing that Aaron hopes. 

etc.

But then why do you use a ContextLink? Wouldn't that be instead

MemberLink
   SatisfyingSet
      $X
      Evaluation
         hope
         Aaron
         $X
   Evaluation eat@456 Ben lunch

I guess that could work.  At the time that the wiki page was created, MemberLink was not fashionable. Now its fashionable again, so I guess that's OK.

Or

Inheritance
   SetLink
      Evaluation eat@456 Ben lunch
   SatisfyingSet
      $X
      Evaluation
         hope
         Aaron
         $X
?

That seems reasonable too. 

Also I would think that since eat@456 is a particular instance, then it suffices to restrict the knowledge around it, so again why a context link?

I'm not sure that there is any strong reason, but let me try to sketch some of the original reasoning:

MemberLinks and InheritanceLinks assert facts, relationships that are true "globally", in the universe as a whole.

ContextLinks assert facts, relationships that are true only in Aaron's mind.  

This goes back to the old question of how to map Kripkle frames into the atomspace.  There are many different confusing things written about Kripke frames; the particular variant that I like to think about is that which is called a "microtheory" in CYC -- a set of self-consistent statements that are true at a particular location during chaining.  

So, during forward chaining, you start with one single "context" or "set of facts". At each step of chaining, you get a new, slightly larger set of facts: the original ones, plus whatever you have deduced. This is a "Kripke frame".   Note that two instances of the same chainer, if they start with the same initial context, but select something else to "think about", will deduce a different set of facts, and start on a path down a different set of frames or "mini-universes".  Some of these different deduction paths may contradict one-another (for example, consider evidence in a legal case), and some of these paths converge to the same total set of conclusions.

The idea here is that a kripke frame or a context or a min-universe holds things that are known to be true at a certain point of of a history-path of deduction.  The mini-universe of things that Aaron thinks is just another context.   

That's how it got to be Context, and not something else.

I hope you see how MemberLinks are inappropriate for the kripke frames (I think !?), but they might be fine for what Aaron thinks.   If not, then I'm not sure what the point of Context links really is.

--linas

Thanks,
Nil

-- Ben

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "opencog" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to opencog+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ope...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/5763E071.80606%40gmail.com.

[Linas Vepstas]

Continuing.

Yep. It makes no sense.  There seem to be two ways out:

1) don't use context link for this case.

2) don't define context link the way that its defined on that wiki page.

 

What would make sense would be to consider as domain something like all possible traces of the universe (maybe traces of atomspaces or something like that) and consider that Ben at a certain time T is a certain subset of these traces (where the pattern corresponding to Ben is present at Time T in these traces, so (AtTime T Ben) is a random variable with is true only if a certain trace happens to contain Ben's pattern at time T). And <Aaron-hopes> is another subset of traces corresponding to everything that Aaron hopes will happen at time T. Then we can intersect them.

well the reason i keep saying "kripke frame" and "mini universe" is that, what matters is not the time-T, but rather a more abstract concept of time: the number of steps taken in some forward-chaining inference.

So, Aaron is thinking this, and then that, and then something else, and then he thinks about Ben eating lunch.  What matters here is the chain of thoughts that got to Aaron's current mental state, and not the physical time in the universe.    

Another point is that the chain of thoughts that Aaron is having is different from the chain of thoughts that Nil is having.  

I was hoping that these mini-universes that exist on our heads were "contexts" but you seem to have demonstrated that the current definition of contexts is not right for this situation.

That is why I'm asking what is $X is <Aaron-hopes>.

Of course in this way of doing things we would rarely use EvaluationLink at all, instead we would mostly use Inheritance or Implication, because you cannot possibly enumerate potentially infinitely long traces.

However EvaluationLink would still be useful when the system is operating at a higher level of thought, somewhat possibly disconnected from the sensors, but that could be reconnected via bridge knowledge.

So I suppose what we want is to connect linguistic semantics (where the domain is ???) with experiential semantics (where the domain is traces of the universe).

Well, even for sensors, one has different kripke frames. for example "I heard something go boom, but did not see anything happen" -- in the sensory frame of hearing, there's a certain truth, but in the sensory frame of sight, there is not.

Lets try that, using MemberLink

MemberLink

    SatisfyingSet

       $X

       Evaluation

          hearing-sensor-left-side

          Me-myself-I

          $X

    Evaluation sound@456 loud

Is that OK? Something like that?

I don't know what you mean by "traces of the universe"

 

Or perhaps we want to bypass this experiential semantics (though when OpenPsi need to take a decision, it really needs a way or another to get back to this experimential semantics). So I'm really confused.

Not sure what you mean here. What does "get back to experiential semantics" mean?

 

Do we want relex2logic to be the linguistic->experiential bridge?

Not quite sure what you mean, here, but after using R2L to parse voice commands that tell the robot to do something, it didn't work very well.  I had to fall back to pre-R2L raw data to get things to work reliably.

I also struggled to deal with "grounded knowledge" -- knowledge about how to move arms, make facial expressions, and relate that to the words being said. So, for this R2L fell far short, and something much more needs to be done.  I've got only vague mutalble ideas at the moment, and a working prototype, but that's all.

 

Or does relex2logic is supposed to do something else?

convert only some (but not all) sentences into a classical-logic form, suitable for reasoning?  I say "not all" because many sentences don't seem to fit into the strictures of classical logic.  (poetry, for example -- e.g. Feng Tang's recent translations of Rabindranath Tagore. . Heh)

--linas

Nil

ben

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "opencog" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to opencog+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ope...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/5763FED7.20201%40gmail.com.

[Linas Vepstas]

Hi Ben,

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 1:15 AM, Ben Goertzel <b...@goertzel.org> wrote:

Nil,

The main point here is to be able to refer to the truth values that an
Atom A may hold in various possible worlds, without (as a side effect
of doing this reference) modifying the truth value that A holds in the
Atomspace

So for instance if we have

Inheritance Ben sane <.8>

we still want to be able to say

"Bob thinks Ben is totally insane"

[...] 

We used to deal with this by having truth value versions in Composite
TruthValue, but Linas got rid of CompositeTV some time ago...

Well, but only under the understanding that it is completely identical

using the ContextLinks.  CompositeTruthValue was a premature

optimization  that caused techical problems; however, it does not affect

the semantics of the atoms, because it was supposed to be *identical*

to using the ContextLinks

 

What Amen suggested yesterday is that 

ContextLink <0>
    SatisfyingSet
         EvaluationLink
              PredicateNode "thinks"
              ConceptNode "Bob"
              $X
    Inheritance Ben sane

What Amen suggested yesterday appears to be identical to what 

has been on that wiki page for almost 2 years.  This is not new.

 

would have the same meaning.   The idea, informally put, is that

"Bob thinks Ben is insane"

means

" (The Ben in Bob's thoughts) has the property of (insanity as
understood in Bob's thoughts)"

Yes, that's the goal of what was written on that wiki page.  

"Linas hoped that the wiki page correctly described such relationships" 

Yes, but I think Nil's point was that the AndLinks there are quite awkward.  In order for the And Ben <Aaron-hopes> to make sense, we have to think of Concept Ben as being not just the Ben of the physical universe, but also the Ben in everyone's hopes and dreams which makes Concept Ben unweildy and large somehow. 

Funny thing is, when Nil said "it doesn't make sense", I agreed with him, at that time.  But now that I read the above, it doesn't seem so bad. At least for the two nouns.   The verb of Aaron's hopes still seems awkward, because verbs don't exists as things (by definition - if its a thing, its a noun).

 

In general, if one has


R( (ContextAnchorNode [1]) )

EmbeddedTruthValueLink <s>
      ContextAnchorNode [1]
      L

where R is any logical relationship and L is any Atom

The notation above is a bit queer, given previous notation, but I think I get what you're trying to say. 

then the  meaning is that, within the (fuzzy) scope of things that satisfy

R($x)

the truth value of L is <s>

right.

 

So then, this seems equivalent to

ContextLink <s>
     SatisfyingSet
          R
     L

right. 

-- at least this was Amen's idea, which makes sense to me at the moment...

well, its not just Amen's idea -- its what the wiki page said since Sept 2014, when you and Aaron and I and Amen and others hammered it out in a long set of emails.

 

--linas

-- Ben

[Nil Geisweiller]

On 06/24/2016 02:30 AM, Linas Vepstas wrote:
> So I suppose what we want is to connect linguistic semantics (where
> the domain is ???) with experiential semantics (where the domain is
> traces of the universe).
>
>
> Well, even for sensors, one has different kripke frames. for example "I
> heard something go boom, but did not see anything happen" -- in the
> sensory frame of hearing, there's a certain truth, but in the sensory
> frame of sight, there is not.
>
> Lets try that, using MemberLink
>
> MemberLink
> SatisfyingSet
> $X
> Evaluation
> hearing-sensor-left-side
> Me-myself-I
> $X
> Evaluation sound@456 loud
>
> Is that OK? Something like that?
>
> I don't know what you mean by "traces of the universe"

It doesn't have to be traces, technically it would be possible universes
(elements of an unknown probabilitized space Omega). But if time exists
in some universes then yes there are gonna look like traces.

I have more to say but I fear that it's gonna be a diversion before the
July demo (at least for myself, I've already spend to much of time
thinking about it), so I prefer to let that aside for now and focus on
the chicken feet or pizza demo which doesn't really need that anyway.

Nil

> <mailto:opencog%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.

> To post to this group, send email to ope...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:ope...@googlegroups.com>.