Re: Namespace for Geometrical Reasoning?

Stephan Heuel wrote:
>   JDP> This module does not seem to do what is normally meant by
>   JDP> "reasoning". And it certainly could be used in domains other
>   JDP> than AI.  [...]
> 
> While I agree with your second point to some extent, I wonder what AI
> people normally mean by the term "reasoning". IMHO reasoning is the
> process of performing deduction or induction given some
> information. And this information can surely be geometric information.

Reasoning generally refers to deduction, which involves processes of
generalization, specialization, and ontological pattern matching.

Not all decision-making should be called reasoning, unless you believe
that an ant reasons when it decides which direction to go to find that
dropped lollipop.

Deciding whether a point is inside or outside the region, with some
special statistical handling for the borderline case, is not reasoning.
Deciding whether x > 1.5 is not reasoning, whether it incorporates
fuzziness or not.


But even though I disagree with the use of "reasoning" in this way,
"geometric reasoning" seems to be more or less established as a name
by the academics; so, go with that.  There is value is using a name
with which other users might already be familiar.


> I would prefer to use our acronym, therefore 
> 	Math::SUGR 
> would then be my favorite.

Fine; but I predict that if -- no, when -- you ask about this on
[email protected], you will find that acronyms are generally deprecated
in module names.  And for good reason.  When someone is looking for
a module to do, say, GA in perl, they don't search for "OPEAL".  ;-)


-- 
John Douglas Porter