Next: Specifying the Problem Up: Imitating Analogical Reasoning Previous: A Geometrical Analogy

Describing Diagrams

So how do we go about describing such diagrams? Here is a first version. But there are problems connected with describing these diagrams. Variations are possible. e.g. for the source figure (A) we could have either ``a rectangle with a triangle on top'' or ``a rectangle with a triangle on its perimeter". For the target figure (B) we could have ``a rectangle with a triangle inside it'' or ``a triangle with a rectangle outside it''. These alternatives represent some of different relationships that can hold between objects.

So we need to do three things: adopt a syntactic convention; adopt a semantic convention; and drop synonyms and alternatives. Here's the syntactic convention we adopt: =6cm /home/dream4/paul/teaching/ai1problemsolving/slides/evansanalogy/slide7.eps

The semantic convention is one of consistency. For example, on(triangle, rectangle) means ``the triangle is on top of the rectangle''.

For example a triangle entirely inside a rectangle might be described by any of:

We have to choose exactly one of these - say, inside(triangle, rectangle). Note that inside is the predicate and triangle and rectangle are the arguments.

=6cm /home/dream4/paul/teaching/ai1problemsolving/slides/evansanalogy/slide3.eps In this example of a symbolic representation:

Note that the Rule is: ``change on to in''

We now show how to refine the description further. Objects get a unique name.

=6cm /home/dream4/paul/teaching/ai1problemsolving/slides/evansanalogy/slidedescdeb.eps

We also need to define the similarities that exist between the two diagrams. =6cm /home/dream4/paul/teaching/ai1problemsolving/slides/evansanalogy/slidesim.eps

NB there are more similarities possible!


paul@dream.dai.ed.ac.uk
Tue Jan 9 10:51:07 GMT 1996