Content deleted Content added
Sanjeevv1014 (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
m formatting, replaced: ’ → ' |
||
Line 27:
Like [[semantic networks]], frames can be queried using spreading activation. Following the rules of inheritance, any value given to a slot that is inherited by subframes will be updated (IF-ADDED) to the corresponding slots in the subframes and any new instances of a particular frame will feature that new value as the default.
Because frames are based on structures, it is possible to generate a semantic network given a set of frames even though it lacks explicit arcs. References to [[Noam Chomsky]] and his [[generative grammar]] of 1950 are generally missing from [[Marvin Minsky|Minsky]]'s work.
The simplified structures of frames allow for easy analogical reasoning, a much prized feature in any intelligent agent. The procedural attachments provided by frames also allow a degree of flexibility that makes for a more realistic representation and gives a natural affordance for programming applications.
Line 142:
The primary difference between the two paradigms was in the degree that [[Encapsulation (computer programming)|encapsulation]] was considered a major requirement. For the object-oriented paradigm encapsulation was one of, if not the most, critical requirement. The desire to reduce the potential interactions between software components and hence manage large complex systems was a key driver of object-oriented technology. For the frame language camp this requirement was less critical than the desire to provide a vast array of possible tools to represent rules, constraints, and programming logic. In the object-oriented world everything is controlled by methods and the visibility of methods. So for example, accessing the data value of an object property must be done via an accessor method. This method controls things such as validating the data type and constraints on the value being retrieved or set on the property. In Frame languages these same types of constraints could be handled in multiple ways. Triggers could be defined to fire before or after a value was set or retrieved. Rules could be defined that managed the same types of constraints. The slots themselves could be augmented with additional information (called "facets" in some languages) again with the same type of constraint information.
The other main differentiator between frame and OO languages was [[multiple inheritance]] (allowing a frame or class to have two or more superclasses). For frame languages multiple inheritance was a requirement. This follows from the desire to model the world the way humans do, human conceptualizations of the world seldom fall into rigidly defined non-overlapping taxonomies. For many OO languages, especially in the later years of OO, single inheritance was either strongly desired or required. Multiple inheritance was seen as a possible step in the analysis phase to model a ___domain but something that should be eliminated in the design and implementation phases in the name of maintaining encapsulation and [[modularity]].<ref>{{cite web|title=The Unified Modeling Language|url=http://www.essentialstrategies.com/publications/modeling/uml.htm|work=essentialstrategies.com|publisher=Essential Strategies Inc.|access-date=10 December 2013|year=1999|quote=In your
Although the early frame languages such as [[KRL (programming language)|KRL]] did not include [[message passing]], driven by the demands of developers, most of the later frame languages (e.g. Loom, KEE) included the ability to define messages on Frames.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Mettrey|first=William|title=An Assessment of Tools for Building Large Knowledge-Based Systems|journal=AI Magazine|year=1987|volume=8|issue=4|url=http://www.aaai.org/ojs/index.php/aimagazine/article/viewArticle/625|access-date=2013-12-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131110022104/http://www.aaai.org/ojs/index.php/aimagazine/article/viewArticle/625|archive-date=2013-11-10|url-status=dead}}</ref>
| |||