Relational Data Model of the Universe

OK, now I've done it. I've gone and put crows feet between all the elements in the diagram. It is now officially a relational database design.



In an artificial creativity application, many of the tables are loosely coupled because in a creative system we do not know what order we will be creating in.

[1] comments (849 views) |  [0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks

Data Model of the Universe

Of course now I've gone way too far. Last week I produced a model for a universe with only twelve items in the diagram. I have read that diagrams can only have up to twelve items before they become hard to understand. This one has 23:

[0] comments (1143 views) |  [0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks

Actions and Events in my Data Model for the Universe

My last data model of the universe placed actions and events as equally important as history, terrain, and words. My current data model places actions and events in the center of the model as the central concept in the model. I have been trying to figure out how to model actions and events and I finally know how. It seems that the model for actions and events was so complex that it required everything else to be part of the model.

Data Model of the Universe

Also, actions and events will be modeled by English sentences, so I need my machine usable English word definition list to be complete before I can do this. This is what I call programming in English. For example the sentence 'France invades Germany' is an English sentence which well models an action/event in which France invades Germany. If I can get the computer to understand the words ‘France’, ‘invades’ and ‘Germany’. Within a toy universe this may be possible.

By the way, the way I am distinguishing an action and an event is that an action is something an entity does. An event is something done to an entity. I this example 'France invades Germany', the action 'invades' is something done by France. The event 'invades' is something done to Germany.

[0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks

Love as a Characteristic for Machine Understandable English Definitions

I have recently done the following to my
electronically defined list of about 5000 common English words (8M).

1. Removed language (mostly) from the endeme list, converting it into a stand-alone characteristic
2. Attached each word to one or two human groups - army, republic, club, entertainers etc.
3. Separated out the groups list into another table, organizing them into 22 of their own categories
4. Separated the word table into a word table and a meaning table, about a quarter of the words have common multiple meanings
5. Added about 1000 two word definitions to the meanings table. Brief definitions for English words will allow me to verify the endeme lists. They will allow the development of an automatic word coining program. Once I know how endemes and definitions interrelate, then I will be able to take user definitions and coin words from them.
6. Added love to the endeme list. Since I am going to use this as the basis for a Christian game. I am building electronic definitions for about 5000 words that I think my computer will be able to understand. In adding the word love to the endeme set I am beginning to get away from the straight word defining approach and moving toward signature recognition. I am using the endeme approach to define each with 22 characteristics from a particular characteristics list. I then intend to rely on signature recognition to attach the words to meaningful things characters will say or hear.
   
   Adding the groups is the first step in this direction since groups take actions and have meaning within the game. Characters will be party a representation of their group, and partially individuals. These two aspects are weighted differently for each character. Individuals will also take actions. Some groups are weighted more toward individual member actions and others more toward group actions.

[1] comments (515 views) |  [0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks