Re: Query == Implication of Response in a (Blackboard) Server Agent

>An interesting way to handle queries, which shows a relationship
>between queries and logical implication, and why it's nice to encode
>(describe) RDF queries in RDF:
>
>    loop
>       receive more RDF data
>       add its reification (with any source information) to KB
>       (let it be de-reified by security axioms)
>       query KB for any unattempted action-requests
>       for each such action-request:
>          attempt it
>          mark it as attempted
>       end
>    end
>
>With this approach you don't query "What's the temperature in
>Dallas?", you say "For all X, if X is the temperature in Dallas, then
>there exists a request for someone to send me concat('reply 12=',X)."

I find this puzzling. OK, suppose I'm an agent whose job it is to 
respond to requests. If you send me a request, I will do my best to 
respond to it. Bu if you just tell me that a request *exists*, then 
that in itself is not a request, so I wouldn't respond to it. The 
point being that the assertion that something exists is not the same 
as a speech act involving the thing that exists.

>It
>may seem more complicated, but I think the overall system of
>client+server is simpler, because there's less contortion on both
>sides to match an arbitrary query protocol.

I fail to see how this is a real advantage; it smacks rather of 
head-in-the-sand. At some point, something has to deal with the 
protocols that are being used in the transaction, in order that 
anything will actually happen.

Pat Hayes
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes

Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2001 15:34:46 UTC