Let us consider the case when an agent makes a possibly longer plan:

John was hungry, so he decided to go to the kitchen, get some milk from the fridge and drink it.

Before we move to the Xapi translation, let us first discuss what this natural language statement mean to a human observer. We can assume that John is not in the kitchen, he is engaged in some activity elsewhere. Although the statement describes a number of actions taking place, we know that these actions do not actually take place: for the time being, John will stay where he is.

The Xapagy representational model for such situations is to create two instances of John. One instance of John, in the scene representing the current reality, will stay put and imagine the plan. The other instance of John, in the other scene, connected to the current one with a |future-fictional| relation is actually executing the steps necessary for the plan. The two instances of John are connected with an identity relation. The Xapi code for this sequence will be:

$NewSceneOnly #Reality", none, man "John"
"John" / is-a / hungry.
$NewScene #Plan, fictional-future, 
    "John" -> "John"
"John" / plans in #Plan // 
    I / goes-to / a kitchen.
$..// I / open / a fridge.
$..// A milk / is-inside / the fridge.
$..// I / pick-up / the milk.
$..// I / drink / the milk.

Executing this code will yield the instance and VI structures in the figure below..



As we are representing a plan, let us discuss what exactly makes this structure a plan. The first observation is that the scene #Plan, by itself, does not have anything which would identify it as a plan (or even fictional). There is no “fictional” marker on the scene. It is only in relation to the original scene that the #Plan scene is connected with the “future-fictional” relation. One implication of this is that we can represent multiple embeddings of scenes, each of them being fictional with relation to another. Also note that the scene #Reality itself is not the reality: it is only an example in this text.