Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!ksand From: ksand@Apple.COM (Kent Sandvik) Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: Survey: how do we really use objects? Message-ID: <47024@apple.Apple.COM> Date: 3 Dec 90 00:36:51 GMT References: <2586@runxtsa.runx.oz.au> Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA Lines: 38 In article egdorf@zaphod.lanl.gov (Skip Egdorf) writes: >In article <2586@runxtsa.runx.oz.au> timm@runxtsa.runx.oz.au (Tim Menzies) writes: >> >> Are inheritance hierarchies a good way you represent >> knowlege? >While some (as you point out, simple) hierarchies exist that capture some >bits of knowledge, real knowledge-based systems require more complex >representations than are available in object-oriented programming systems. >While object-oriented programming systems can be used to capture such simple >heirarchies, such use in real applications does not allow the capture of >the more complex relationships. The object-oriented programming system >captures the lower-level details of the construction of the higher-level >knowledge-representation system (when properly used as am implementation >tool.) The objects are quite cabable of knowing knowledge about their internal data and relationships between. But it is true that the OOPS paradigm is not very well suitable for cross-knowledge. If we look at multiple inheritance and knowledge inheritance, we still have problems with definitions of relationships between objects. Has anyone looked at providing meta-information in meta-objects that have built-in methods for knowledge requisition, for example having Prolog methods and fields embedded in meta-objects? regards, Kent Sandvik -- Kent Sandvik, Apple Computer Inc, Developer Technical Support NET:ksand@apple.com, AppleLink: KSAND Zippy says: "With C++ we now do have the possibilities to inherit dangling pointer problems" Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com