## Graphing Within a Microtheory

E-Mail Comments to: doc@cyc.com
Copyright© 1996, 1997, 1998, 2002 Cycorp. All rights reserved.

| The Hierarchy Browser
| Graphing with All Microtheories
| Graphing When You Don't Know the Exact Constant Names

When you graph assertions within a particular microtheory, you need to make one additional choice: should assertions in the base microtheories also be included?

The geography microtheories provide an example: #$UnitedStatesGeographyMt has #$WorldGeographyMt as a base, i.e. whatever is true in #$WorldGeographyMt is true in #$UnitedStatesGeographyMt.

Check the option "Use its genl mts too, if possible" and graph with the following parameters:

        Starting Terme: ContinentOfNorthAmerica
         Microtheory: UnitedStatesGeographyMt
         Binary Predicate: geographicalSubRegions

If your copy of OpenCyc had detailed information on geography, the resulting graph would include subregions of the continental United States, such as #$Maine-State.*

Return to the Hierarcy Browser page and try the graph again with the genl mts option turned off. The new graph will omit the assertions which are not in the #$UnitedStatesGeographyMt, so you won't see information about any other countries. It may be surprising not to have any information about the #$ContiguousUnitedStates (lower 48), however the assertion that that is a geographical subregion of North America is in the WorldGeographyMt, not in the UnitedStatesGeographyMt. As a result, all that would appear is #$Alaska-State and all the #$geographicalSubRegions thereof. To display the Mt of each assertion in the hierarchy, click on the button "Show assertion's mts after terms".

* #$UnitedStatesOfAmerica is not a subregion of #$ContinentOfNorthAmerica since Hawaii is not in North America. This is a gray area, since the US is mostly a North American subregion. If it became an important issue, alternative microtheories with different assumptions could be developed.

Last Update: 03/22/2002