## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

**AI agents deal with knowledge (data)
**

◦ Facts (believe & observe knowledge) ◦ Procedures (how to knowledge) ◦ Meaning (relate & define knowledge)

**Right representation is crucial
**

◦ Early realisation in AI ◦ Wrong choice can lead to project failure ◦ Active research area.

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

1

Requirements:

◦ Adequacy (I) (also called completeness) ◦ Correctness (II) ◦ Efficiency (III)

I/II/III

Representational

Inferential

Acquisitional (learning)

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

2

Logic is concerned with reasoning & validity of arguments, Logic may be or may not be true but should be valid. For example: All lemons are blue. Mary is Lemon Therefore Marry is blue. Logic is used as representational method for AI.

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

3

In this valid statements are determined according to rules of propositional syntax. Syntax governs combination of basic building blocks such as propositions & logical connectives. Propositions sentences. are elementary atomic

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

4

It is raining. Snow is white. My car is painted silver. Etc. Compound propositions are formed from atomic formulas using logical connectives such as not, and, or, if, iff. It is raining & the wind is blowing. If you study hard you will be rewarded. The sum of 20 & 30 is not 60

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

5

- for not or negation. & or ⋀ for and or conjunction. V for or or disjunction. → for if …….. then implication. ↔ for if and only if or double implication.

**Example: 1. It is raining and wind is blowing. Syntax : (R&B) 2. It is raining and it is Tuesday. R ⋀T
**

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

6

Syntax

◦ Rules for constructing legal sentences in the logic ◦ Which symbols we can use (English: letters, punctuation) ◦ How we are allowed to combine symbols

**Semantics:The semantics or meaning of a sentence is just a value True or False
**

◦ How we interpret (read) sentences in the logic ◦ Assigns a meaning to each sentence (True or false)

**Example: “All lecturers are seven foot tall”
**

◦ A valid sentence (syntax): (L→ 7) ◦ And we can understand the meaning (semantics)( False)(F) ◦ This sentence happens to be false (there is a counterexample)

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

7

It is raining RAINING It is sunny SUNNY It is windy WINDY If it is rainy then it is not sunny RAINY→ - SUNNY It is not raining in NEW YORK -R(N) I am either not well or just very tired -W(I) ⋁ T(I)

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

8

Whenever he eats sandwiches that have pickles in them, he ends up either asleep at his desk or singing loud songs. S(y)⋀E(x,y) ⋀ P(y) →A(x) ⋁(S(x,z) ⋀ L(z)) S(y) = y is a sandwich. E(x,y) = x(man) eats y( sandwich) P(y) = y(sandwich) has pickles in it A(x) = x ends with sleep S(x,z) = x(man) sings z(songs) L(z) = means that z(the songs) are Loud.

1.

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

9

First-order logic is used to model the world in terms of

◦ objects which are things with individual identities e.g., individual students, lecturers, companies, cars ... ◦ properties of objects that distinguish them from other objects e.g., mortal, blue, oval, even, large, ... ◦ classes of objects (often defined by properties) e.g., human, mammal, machine, ... ◦ relations that hold among objects e.g., brother of, bigger than, outside, part of, has color, occurs after, owns, a member of, ... ◦ functions which are a subset of the relations in which there is only one ``value'' for any given ``input''. e.g., father of, best friend, second half, one more than ...

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur 10/11/09 10

**Predicates: P(x[1], ..., x[n]) (x[1], ..., x[n]): argument ◦ P: predicate name; list ◦ A special function with range = {T, F}; /* x is a human */ ◦ Examples: human(x),
**

◦ When all arguments of a predicate is assigned values (said to be instantiated), the predicate becomes either true or false, i.e., it becomes a proposition. Ex. Father(Fred, Joe)

father(x, y)

/* x is the father of y */

Terms (arguments of predicates must be terms) ◦ Constants are terms (e.g., Fred, a, Z, “red”, etc.) ◦ Variables are terms (e.g., x, y, z, etc.), a variable is instantiated when it is assigned a constant as its value ◦ Functions of terms are terms (e.g., f(x, y, z), f(x, g(a)), etc.) ◦ A term is called a ground term if it does not involve variables

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur 10/11/09 11

Quantifiers Universal quantification ∀ (or forall) ◦ (∀x)P(x) means that P holds for all values of x in the domain associated with that variable. ◦ E.g., (∀x) dolphin(x) => mammal(x) (∀x) human(x) => mortal(x) ◦ Universal quantifiers often used with "implication (=>)" to form "rules" about properties of a class

**(∀x) student(x) => smart(x) (All students are smart)
**

◦ Often associated with English words “all”, “everyone”, “always”, etc. ◦ You rarely use universal quantification to make blanket statements about every individual in the world (because such statement is hardly true)

**(∀x)student(x)^smart(x) means everyone in the world is a student and is smart.
**

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur 10/11/09 12

Existential quantification ∃ ◦ (∃ x)P(x) means that P holds for some value(s) of x in the domain associated with that variable. ◦ E.g., (∃ x) mammal(x) ^ lays-eggs(x)

◦ Existential quantifiers usually used with “^ (and)" to specify a list of properties about an individual. (∃ x) student(x) ^ smart(x) (there is a student who is smart.) ◦ A common mistake is to represent this English sentence as the FOL sentence: (∃ x) student(x) => smart(x) It also holds if there no student exists in the domain because student(x) => smart(x) holds for any individual who is not a student. ◦ Often associated with English words “someone”, “sometimes”, etc. ◦

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur 10/11/09 13

(∃ x) taller(x, Fred) (∃ x) UMBC-Student (x) ^ taller(x, Fred)

Each quantified variable has its scope ◦ (∀x)[human(x) => (∃ y) [human(y) ^ father(y, x)] ◦ All occurrences of x within the scope of the quantified x refer to the same thing. ◦ Use different variables for different things Switching the order of universal quantifiers does not change the meaning: ◦ (∀x)(∀y)P(x,y) <=> (∀y)(∀x)P(x,y), can write as (∀x,y)P(x,y) Similarly, you can switch the order of existential quantifiers. ◦ (∃ x)(∃ y)P(x,y) <=> (∃ y)(∃ x)P(x,y) Switching the order of universals and existential does change meaning: ◦ Everyone likes someone: (∀x)(∃ y)likes(x,y) ◦ Someone is liked by everyone: (∃ y)(∀x) likes(x,y)

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur 10/11/09 14

Every gardener likes the sun. (∀x) gardener(x) => likes(x,Sun) Not Every gardener likes the sun. ~((∀x) gardener(x) => likes(x,Sun)) You can fool some of the people all of the time. (∃ x)(∀t) person(x) ^ time(t) => can-be-fooled(x,t) You can fool all of the people some of the time. (∀x)(∃ t) person(x) ^ time(t) => can-be-fooled(x,t) (the time people are fooled may be different) You can fool all of the people at some time. (∃ t)(∀x) person(x) ^ time(t) => can-be-fooled(x,t) (all people are fooled at the same time) You can not fool all of the people all of the time. ~((∀x)(∀t) person(x) ^ time(t) => can-be-fooled(x,t)) Everyone is younger than his father (∀x) person(x) => younger(x, father(x))

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

15

All purple mushrooms are poisonous. (∀x) (mushroom(x) ^ purple(x)) => poisonous(x) No purple mushroom is poisonous. ~(∃ x) purple(x) ^ mushroom(x) ^ poisonous(x) (∀x) (mushroom(x) ^ purple(x)) => ~poisonous(x) There are exactly two purple mushrooms. (∃ x)(Ey) mushroom(x) ^ purple(x) ^ mushroom(y) ^ purple(y) ^ ~(x=y) ^ (∀z) (mushroom(z) ^ purple(z)) => ((x=z) v (y=z)) Clinton is not tall. ~tall(Clinton) X is above Y if X is directly on top of Y or there is a pile of one or more other objects directly on top of one another starting with X and ending with Y. (∀x)(∀y) above(x,y) <=> (on(x,y) v (∃ z) (on(x,z) ^ above(z,y)))

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur 10/11/09 16

Build a small genealogy knowledge base by FOL that ◦ contains facts of immediate family relations (spouses, parents, etc.) ◦ contains definitions of more complex relations (ancestors, relatives) ◦ is able to answer queries about relationships between people Predicates: ◦ parent(x, y), child (x, y), father(x, y), daughter(x, y), etc. ◦ spouse(x, y), husband(x, y), wife(x,y) ◦ ancestor(x, y), descendent(x, y) ◦ relative(x, y) Facts: ◦ husband(Joe, Mary), son(Fred, Joe) ◦ spouse(John, Nancy), male(John), son(Mark, Nancy) ◦ father(Jack, Nancy), daughter(Linda, Jack) ◦ daughter(Liz, Linda) ◦ etc.

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur 10/11/09 17

Rules for genealogical relations

Queries

◦ (∀x,y) parent(x, y) <=> child (y, x) (∀x,y) father(x, y) <=> parent(x, y) ^ male(x) (similarly for mother(x, y)) (∀x,y) daughter(x, y) <=> child(x, y) ^ female(x) (similarly for son(x, y)) ◦ (∀x,y) husband(x, y) <=> spouse(x, y) ^ male(x) (similarly for wife(x, y)) (∀x,y) spouse(x, y) <=> spouse(y, x) (spouse relation is symmetric) ◦ (∀x,y) parent(x, y) => ancestor(x, y) (∀x,y)(∃ z) parent(x, z) ^ ancestor(z, y) => ancestor(x, y) ◦ (∀x,y) descendent(x, y) <=> ancestor(y, x) ◦ (∀x,y)(∃ z) ancestor(z, x) ^ ancestor(z, y) => relative(x, y) (related by common ancestry) (∀x,y) spouse(x, y) => relative(x, y) (related by marriage) (∀x,y)(∃ z) relative(z, x) ^ relative(z, y) => relative(x, y) (transitive) (∀x,y) relative(x, y) => relative(y, x) (symmetric) ◦ ancestor(Jack, Fred) /* the answer is yes */ ◦ relative(Liz, Joe) /* the answer is yes */ ◦ relative(Nancy, Mathews) /* no answer in general, no if under closed world assumption */

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur 10/11/09 18

“It is not the case that everyone is ...” is logically equivalent to “There is someone who is NOT ...” “No one is ...” is logically equivalent to “All people are NOT ...” We can relate sentences involving forall and exists using De Morgan’s laws:

~(∀x)P(x) <=> (∃ x) ~P(x) ~(∃ x) P(x) <=> (∀x) ~P(x) (∃ x) P(x) <=> ~(∀x) ~P(x) (∀x) P(x) <=> ~ (∃ x) ~P(x)

**Example: no one likes everyone ◦ ~ (∃ x)(∀y)likes(x,y) ◦ (∀x)(∃ y)~likes(x,y)
**

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur 10/11/09 19

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

20

Clause is disjunction of number of literals. A Ground clause is one in which no variables occur in the expression. A Horn clause is a clause with at most one positive literal.

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

21

A term (denoting a individual in the world) is a constant symbol, a variable symbol, or a function of terms. An atom (atomic sentence) is a predicate P(x[1], ..., x[n]) ◦ Ground atom: all terms in its arguments are ground terms (does not involve variables) ◦ A ground atom has value true or false (like a proposition in PL) A literal is either an atom or a negation of an atom A sentence is an atom, or, ◦ ~P, P v Q, P ^ Q, P => Q, P <=> Q, (P) where P and Q are sentences ◦ If P is a sentence and x is a variable, then (∀x)P and (∃ x)P are sentences A well-formed formula (wff) is a sentence containing no "free" variables. i.e., all variables are "bound" by universal or existential quantifiers. (∀x)P(x,y) has x bound as a universally quantified variable, but y is free.

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur 10/11/09

22

1. 2.

**Eliminate →, using: a → b= ¬ a v b. Reduce the scope of each ¬ to a single term, using:
**

¬ (¬ p) = p deMorgan's laws: ¬(a Λ b) = ¬ a V ¬ b ¬(a V b) = ¬ a Λ ¬ b ¬ ∀x P(x) = ∃ x ¬ P(x) ¬ ∃ x P(x) = ∀x ¬ P(x)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Standardize variables. Move all quantifiers to the left of the formula without changing their relative order. Eliminate existential quantifiers by inserting Skolem functions. Drop the prefix. Convert the expression into a conjunction of disjuncts, using associativity and distributivity. Create a separate clause for each conjunct. Standardize apart the variables in the set of clauses generated in step 8, using the fact that: (∀x: P(x) Λ Q(x)) = ∀x: P(x) Λ ∀x: Q(x)

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

23

Objective

Skolem’s Theorem

◦ Want all variables universally quantified ◦ Notational variant of FOL w/o existentials ◦ Retain implicitly full FOL expressiveness

Every existentially quantified variable can be replaced by a unique Skolem function whose arguments are all the universally quantified variables on which the existential depends, without changing FOL.

Examples

◦ “Everybody likes something” ∀(x) ∃ (y) [Person(x) & Likes(x,y)] ∀(x) [Person(x) & Likes(x, S1(x))] Where S1(x) = “that which x likes” ◦ “Every philosopher writes at least one book” ∀(x) ∃ (y)[Philosopher(x) & Book(y)) => Write(x,y)] ∀(x)[(Philosopher(x) & Book(S2(x))) => Write(x,S2(x))]

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

24

Example:

∀x: [Roman(x) Λ know(x, Marcus)] →[hate(x,Caesar) V (∀y: ∃ z: hate(y,z) → thinkcrazy(x,y))] ◦ Eliminate → ∀x: ¬[Roman(x) Λ know(x, Marcus)] V [hate(x,Caesar) V (∀y: ∃ z:¬( hate(y,z) V thinkcrazy(x,y))] ◦ Reduce scope of ¬.

∀x: [ ¬Roman(x) V ¬ know(x, Marcus)] V [hate(x,Caesar) V (∀y: ∀z: ¬hate(y,z) V thinkcrazy(x,y))] ◦ “Standardize” variables: Rename Variables: ∀x: P(x) V ∀x: Q(x) converts to ∀x: P(x) V ∀y: Q(y) ◦ Move quantifiers. ∀x: ∀y: ∀z: [¬Roman(x) V ¬ know(x, Marcus)] V [hate(x,Caesar) V (¬hate(y,z) V thinkcrazy(x,y))]

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur 10/11/09

25

◦ Eliminate existential quantifiers. ∃ y: President(y) will be converted to President(S1) ∀x: ∃ y: father-of(y,x) will be converted to ∀x: father-of(S2(x),x)) ◦ Drop the prefix. [ ¬Roman(x) ¬ know(x,Marcus)] V [hate(x, Caesar) V (¬ hate(y,z) V thinkcrazy(x,y))] ◦ Convert to a conjunction of disjuncts.

¬ Roman(x) V ¬ know(x,Marcus) V hate(x,Caesar) V ¬ hate(y,z) V thinkcrazy(x,y)

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur 10/11/09 26

It is a simple iterative process : at each step, two clauses, called the parent clauses are compared(resolved), yielding a new clause that has been inferred from them. The new clause represents the ways that two parent clauses interact with each other.

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

27

Given: winter

**We can conclude: summer v cold
**

¬ winter V cold

V

summer

Herbrand's Theorem: To show that a set of clauses S is unsatisfiable, it is necessary to consider only interpretations over a particular set, called the Herbrand universe of S. A set of clauses S is unsatisfiable if and only if a finite subset of ground instances (in which all bound variables have had a value substituted for them) of S is unsatsifable.

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

28

1. 2. 3.

Convert all the propositions of F to clause form. Negate P and convert the result to clause form. Add it to the set of clauses obtained in step 1. Repeat until either a contradiction is found or no progress can be made:

a) Select two clauses. Call these the parent clauses. b) Resolve them together. The resolvent will be the disjunction of all of the literals of both of the parent clauses with the following exception: If there are any pairs of literals L and ¬ L such that one of the parent clauses

contains L and the other contains ¬L, then select one such pair and eliminate both L and ¬L from the resolvent. c) If the resolvent is the empty clause, then a contradiction has been found. If it is not, then add it to the set of clauses available to the procedure.

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

29

Consider the given Axioms Given in table of next slides (First Column). Suppose we want to prove R. First we convert each axiom in to clause form. Negate R i.e ¬R.

Select pair of clauses to resolve together. The result gives an empty clause. This is called resolution proof by refutition.

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

30

Given Axioms P (P Λ Q) → R

Clause Form P

(1)

¬P V ¬Q V R ¬S V Q ¬T V Q

(2) (3) (4) (5)

(S V T) → Q

T

T

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

31

¬P V ¬Q V R

¬R ¬P V ¬Q

P

¬T V Q ¬T

¬Q

T

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

32

Axioms in clause form: 1. man(Marcus) 2. Pompeian(Marcus) 3. ¬ Pompeian(x1) v Roman(x1) 4. Ruler(Caesar) 5. ¬ Roman(x2) v loyalto(x2, Caesar) v hate(x2, Caesar) 6. loyalto(x3, f1(x3)) 7. ¬ man(x4) v ¬ ruler(y1) v ¬ tryassassinate(x4, y1) v loyalto (x4, y1) 8. tryassassinate(Marcus, Caesar)

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur 10/11/09 33

Prove: hate(Marcus, Caesar)

¬hate(Marcus, Caesar)

5 Marcus/x2

3

¬Roman(Marcus) V loyalto(Marcus,Caesar) Marcus/x1

¬Pompeian(Marcus) V loyalto(Marcus,Caesar) 7 loyalto(Marcus,Caesar)

2

Marcus/x4, Caesar/y1 1 ¬man(Marcus) V ¬ ruler(Caesar) V ¬ tryassassinate(Marcus, Caesar) ¬ ruler(Caesar) V ¬ tryassassinate(Marcus, Caesar) ¬ tryassassinate(Marcus, Caesar)

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur 10/11/09

4 8

34

Prove: loyalto(Marcus, Caesar)

¬loyalto(Marcus, Caesar)

5 Marcus/x2

3

¬Roman(Marcus) V hate(Marcus,Caesar) 2

Marcus/x1 ¬Pompeian(Marcus) V hate(Marcus,Caesar) hate(Marcus,Caesar)

(a)

hate(Marcus,Caesar) 10 Marcus/x6, Caesar/y3 persecute(Caesar, Marcus) 9 Marcus/x5, Caesar/y2 hate(Marcus,Caesar)

: :

(b)

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

35

1. 2. 3.

4. 5.

6.

7.

8.

9. 10. 11.

Axioms in clause form: man(Marcus) Pompeian(Marcus) Born(Marcus, 40) ¬ man(x1) V mortal(x1) ¬ Pompeian(x2) V died(x2,79) erupted(volcano, 79) ¬ mortal(x3) V ¬ born(x3, t1) V ¬gt(t2—t1, 150) V dead(x3, t2) Now=2002 ¬ alive(x4, t3) V ¬dead (x4, t3) ¬ dead(x5, t4) V alive (x5, t4) ¬ died (x6, t5) V ¬ gt(x6, t5) V dead(x6, t6)

**Prove: ¬alive(Marcus, now)
**

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur 10/11/09 36

Requires full formal representation in FOL (for conversion to clause form) Resolution defines a search space (which clauses will be resolved against which others define the operators in the space) search method required Worst case: resolution is exponential in the number of clauses to resolve. Actual: exponential in average resolvable set (= branching factor) Can we define heuristics to guide search for BestFS, or A* or B*? (Not in the general case)

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur 10/11/09 37

**Advantages of using logic
**

◦ No need to make a difference between knowledge representation and the inference method ◦ Soundness (a false statement can not be derived) and completeness (all true statements can be derived) ◦ Has a logical make-up

**Disadvantage of using logic
**

◦ The derivation takes a lot of effort ◦ Difficult to use different layers of representation

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

38

Logic programming

◦ New programming paradigm ◦ Viewing the set of clauses K as a program

PROLOG

◦ Using a set of true first order logic clauses as base ◦ Has the advantage of knowledge presentation in logic ◦ Program “What” instead of “How” (like in C)

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

39

Horn clauses

◦ First order logic: a clause is a set of positive and negative literals (atoms and atom negation) ◦ Horn clauses: a maximum of one positive literal per clause ◦ Using Horn clauses decreases expressiveness but considerably improves efficiency

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

40

Horn clauses

◦ Number of atoms in the head is 0 or 1 ◦ Number of atoms in the body is 0 or more ◦ Empty clause: both head and body have 0 clauses

Procedural meaning

◦ The procedural call of the program

Declarative meaning

◦ Logical meaning

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

41

Horn clause fact rule A. A :- B1, B2, …, Bn

Procedural meaning Definition of procedure A For invoking the procedure A, the procedures B1, B2, …, Bn have to be called in order

Declarative meaning A is TRUE IF B1, B2, …, Bn THEN A

query empty clause

:- B1, B2, …, Bn □

**Start the calculationNegation of B1, B2, …, Bn Termination of the Contradiction calculation
**

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur 10/11/09 42

**PROLOG uses proof by contradiction
**

◦ SLD resolution: unification of atoms in the body of goal clause with the heads of unit clauses or definite clauses ◦ Unification: manipulating two predicates to make them appear the same ◦ If there are no candidates for unification, backtrack to the previous goal and try a different unification candidate ◦ If the empty clause can be derived, the program terminates successfully

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

43

**not surprisingly, early semantic nets did not scale well
**

◦ most links were general associations ◦ no real basis for structuring semantic relations

**much research has been done in defining richer sets of links
**

◦ rely on richer formalism, not richer domain knowledge

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

44

**Conceptual Dependency theory:
**

◦ primitives of meaning

1. 2. 3. 4. Actions Objects modifiers of actions modifiers of objects

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

45

Conceptual

Dependency Theory:

1. Actions

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. transfer a relationship (give) transfer physical location of an object (go) apply physical force to an object (push) move body part by owner (kick) grab an object by an actor (grasp) ingest an object by an animal (eat) expel from an animal’s body (tell) transfer mental information (decide) conceptualize or think about an idea (think) produce sound (say) focus sense organ (listen)

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

46

Conceptual

Dependency theory:

primitives of meaning

1. 2. 3. 4. Actions Objects modifiers of actions modifiers of objects

**conceptual syntax rules
**

built using these primitives constitute a grammar of meaningful semantic relationships.

**conceptual dependency relationships
**

are defined using the conceptual syntax rules can be used to construct an internal representation of an English sentence.

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

47

◦

**Tense and mode are added.
**

Example:

past future transition etc.

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

48

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

49

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

50

Conceptual Dependency Theory (Schank, 1973)

** attempts to model the semantic structure of natural language 4 primitive conceptualizations, from which meaning is built
**

ACT action PPobjects (picture producers) AA modifiers of actions (action aiders) PA modifiers of objects (picture aiders)

primitive actions include:

ATRANS (transfer a relationship, e.g., give) PTRANS (transfer physical location, e.g., move) MTRANS (transfer mental information, e.g., tell) ...

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

51

**a script is a structure that describes a stereotyped sequence of events in a particular context
**

◦ closely resembles a frame, but with additional information about the expected sequence of events and the goals/motivations of the actors involved ◦ the elements of the script are represented using Conceptual Dependency relationships (as such, actions are reduced to conceptual primitives)

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

52

**EXAMPLE: restaurant script
**

describes: items usually found in a restaurant people and their roles (e.g., chef, waiter, …) preconditions and post conditions common scenes in a restaurant: entering, ordering, eating, leaving props and roles are identified

**pre- and postconditions CDs describe actions that occur in each of the individual scenes
**

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur 10/11/09 53

Biomedical Dept, NIT Raipur

10/11/09

54

- AI 13Lect.ppt
- Problem Representation in Ai:
- 3.PredicateCal
- Artificial Intelligence Problems
- Artificial Intelligence University Questions
- Ai Units 1 and 2
- Artificial Intelligence Notes
- Expert Systems
- Artificial Intelligence Oral Question Answer
- H2007_03_Week9Predicate
- Ai Unit-2 - Copy
- Chapter1p2
- lecture 1
- Terry Text3
- Java Basic Operators-2
- Logic
- CS2351 - Artificial Intelligence-2 Marks
- Badiou - The Three Negations
- Predicate Derivation Tips
- Klir Clair Yuan 1997 Klir Clair Yuan 1997
- Chimakonam-quantification in African Logic Ft 2-2 2013
- 163597885 Logic and Boolean Algebra
- programming_languages
- De Morgans
- Lect31 Operators Expressions

- Perry
- 1:13-cv-00501 #9
- Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, No. CCCXXXVI. October, 1843. Vol. LIV. by Various
- Define Your Value Proposition - GrowthPanel.com
- Patrick v. Bowman, 149 U.S. 411 (1893)
- 3:09-cv-02292 #568
- Stagg v. Insurance Company, 77 U.S. 589 (1871)
- Elements of Debating by Lyon, Leverett S. (Leverett Samuel), 1885-1959
- frsbog_mim_v22_0061.pdf
- SCOTX Decision on Rain Tax
- Lee v. Dodge, 72 U.S. 808 (1865)
- 3:09-cv-02292 #60
- Realtor AE Magazine Summer 2013
- Insurance Co. v. Young's Administrator, 90 U.S. 85 (1875)
- Realtor AE Magazine Summer 2013 version 2
- Deductive Logic by Stock, St. George William Joseph, 1850-
- UT Dallas Syllabus for atec6351.501 06f taught by Harold Wood (hgw021000)
- Practical Argumentation by Pattee, George K.
- 09-16959 #41
- tmp633D.tmp
- tmpB7F4.tmp
- Open Data and Value Propositions with Mel Norman
- San Juan Capistrano Water Rates Struck Down
- Perry
- Judge's Decision Striking Down Portions of CA Prop. 9 and Prop. 89
- Perry
- Answer 1 -- Ambulance Fraud Case
- LogicDeductive and Inductive by Read, Carveth, 1848-1931
- Mock Ler
- Perry

- “it is Defined as a Method That Provide a Better
- Chapter 7
- Chapter 2
- Biomedical Department, NIT Raipur
- Lecture 4
- Chapter 6
- Chapter 3
- Microcontroller 8051
- 8051 Microcontrollers
- Chapter 1
- Normalization cont
- Lecture 6
- Chapter 1
- Biomedical Department, NIT Raipur
- A. a Short Java RMI Tutorial
- Sockets Programming
- JavaTM RMI Tutorial
- ReadMe
- Socket Programming in C/C++
- Remote Method Invocation
- Interactive Programming in Java
- Programming With Java RMI …an Introduction...
- Lab Samples
- Java Network Programming
- Sockets Notes
- Socket Demo
- lecture 1
- Add Number

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulClose Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Close Dialog## This title now requires a credit

Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

Loading