[MUD-Dev] OpenCyc, design implications of ontological systems?

dmiles at users.sourceforge.net dmiles at users.sourceforge.net
Thu Apr 18 16:04:28 New Zealand Standard Time 2002

Note: This message was written via the list web archives.  There is
no guarantee that the claimed author is actually the author.
Original message: http://www.kanga.nu/archives/MUD-Dev-L/2002Q2/msg00200.php

Perhaps together, we can work out an ontology of a sample Mud.  Here
is a start..  I list some things I don't like about it below and
welcome more critiques additions, renamings and modifications.  If
it developes into a D&D pragma we can also try to see how the upper
branches could get even more generic for example a MagcialItem could
become 'SpecialOperatorItem' and subdivided into 'SupernaturalItem'

The best way to develope an ontology is to nitpick it and keep
discovering exceptions and try to come up with a better design.

        |__ComponentMudObject (Meaning it is a part to something)
                              |__HeroInstance* (only one)
                              |__MobInstance* (multiple)

  * Has Prototype Specs

  ** Is Reified from MudObject example: (AirInstanceFn ?Area) =>

Having two ontogies is generally usefull.

One for the Objective view above and another for a Subjective view bellow:


As we develope a strong ontology, we can map it to an existing AI
system that can learn and experment inside our Muds.

-Douglas Miles

MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu

More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list