[om-list] Core model

[Luke Call]

Mark Butler wrote:

> Luke,
> 
>   Do you have any comments on selecting AI-traditional model instead of a
> RDBMS-traditional model for our base data representation yet?

Mark,
Unfortunately my last week hasn't allowed for much time on this. I am 
maybe 2/3 finished reading the first article you sent out, and pondering 
as I go. I still need to carefully read the other email from you & Tom 
since then.

Here are some quick (but disjointed) initial thoughts:  I shouldn't have 
said specifically RDBMS, though that was one example (and they are a 
mature substrate)--an object database may be just as good, don't know 
yet until more analysis done at a higher level. The URL/paper you 
recommended on various approaches to knowledge representation is very 
interesting--a good recommendation for which I thank you. One way to 
represent "goals" or an idealized state of something is to have an 
idealized object--like an instance of the person class that represents 
the user in some desired future state (financially, habits, or with 
whatever goals), together possibly with various calculated (suggested by 
the system) or anticipated (planned by the user) paths for getting 
there. In reading about rule-based things I wonder if objects would also 
benefit from internal rules--sort of like database constraints or 
triggers, but in a context more like real life and in a form matching 
the system's architecture: So if the "ideal" man (let's say, Christ) 
would never do something that another man might, the object representing 
ideal behavior might have a rule that would cause certain actions to be 
impossible.

I'm thinking that even with the currently limited time I have (1.3 hours 
5 days a week under best conditions, hardly any last week), I may need 
to take some time to learn more about the various AI areas (logic, 
rules, nets, statistics etc.) mentioned in the paper you sent, either 
before or simultaneously with developing the personal organizer software 
mentioned earlier. If simultaneously, the benefit is using the software 
sooner and having a framework within which to employ the techniques 
learned as I go; a risk is to mis-design. I think the bigger risk is in 
doing nothing--waiting for all the answers means getting nowhere--but am 
currently unsure how the balance between learning vs. doing will best 
play out.

Now that is all self-centered, and I don't want to slow down others, but 
I don't feel qualified to say much beyond that at this point. As usual, 
you may have useful insights, and this week I expect to get done reading 
them and the other stuff you've sent. My sincere regret and apologies 
for the slow pace.

On a more practical note, after reading your email better, I hope to 
discuss more intelligently the limits vs. advantages (vs. possibility of 
combining) our two preferred approaches. I don't see how to represent 
the entire world and its behaviors with a logical system, but maybe to 
use a logical system inside such a representation. But I will read & 
reply more. Again, sorry for the lame response.

Luke