RE: welcome newcomers subgroups, home page and categories

Hi Carl and All,
 
Thanks for the forwarding. Here are some updates.
 
* PSOA Data in RuleML Grailog:
http://psoa.ruleml.org/metaviz/html/PSOAMetaVizExplained.html
http://wiki.ruleml.org/index.php/Grailog#News
 
* Declarativity/Logic and AI Ethics KR:
http://blog.ruleml.org/post/36351337-declarative-notation-for-artificial-intelligence#disqus_thread
https://luxlogai.uni.lu
 
The Luxembourg Logic for AI Summit, 17-26 September 2018
(focus theme on “methods and tools for responsible AI”),
might be (F2F-)relevant for the AI KR Community Group
(RuleML and RR, holding RuleML+RR 2018 at LuxLogAI 2018,
have long worked with W3C).
 
Best,
Harold
 
 
From: carl mattocks [mailto:carlmattocks@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 6:11 PM
To: Harold Boley
Subject: Fwd: welcome newcomers subgroups, home page and categories
 
fyi
 
Carl Mattocks

 
 
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: carl mattocks <carlmattocks@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: welcome newcomers subgroups, home page and categories
To: ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program <metadataportals@yahoo.com>
Cc: Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>, "public-aikr@w3.org" <public-aikr@w3.org>


Personally I am very comfortable  using cross-walks between entity frameworks . Such as, concepts of ontologies [declared with RDF/owl nuts and bolts] that map to concepts of an IOT thesaurus declared with ranganathaan  facet  categories of personality, energy, matter, space, and time. The fun part is agreeing what is used to create the 'map'. I quite like RuleML Grailog    <http://www.cs.unb.ca/~boley/talks/RuleMLGrailog.pdf> http://www.cs.unb.ca/~boley/talks/RuleMLGrailog.pdf
 
I look forward to reading your paper
Carl


It was a pleasure to clarify
 
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 3:15 PM, ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program <metadataportals@yahoo.com> wrote:
My category theory approach makes sure we do not overlook anything. Ontologies are at the "nuts and bolts"  level.
 
Artificial intelligence currently has an anthropocentric point of view, which results in a myopia.
 
Using category theory we define entities, sentient entities, cognitive entities, intelligent entities and technological entities, where at the entities level, we consider real physical universe entities, digital entities, virtual entities and abstract domain entities, all other entities exist in the real physical world.
 
All will become clear as soon as I get the paper out.
 
Milton Ponson
GSM: +297 747 8280
PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
Aruba, Dutch Caribbean
Project Paradigm: Bringing the ICT tools for sustainable development to all stakeholders worldwide through collaborative research on applied mathematics, advanced modeling, software and standards development
 
On Thursday, July 19, 2018 7:55 AM, carl mattocks <carlmattocks@gmail.com> wrote:
 
I believe the ontology building approach is the best way to ensure formulation of AIKR concept definitions have sufficient rigor.Thus, definitions of concepts old and new are framed by our work goals.
 
Carl


It was a pleasure to clarify
 
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 7:34 AM, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
actually, Carl
in addition to new definitions for existing concepts
there are 'new concepts' coming up every day that need defining
 
is the vocabulary entry form  adequate for your suggested
process or if you suggest changes,
should we add a category 'new concept' or if you d like to set up
a new form entirely for 'new concept' where formal definitions not yet exist?
 
PDM


Dr Paola Di Maio
Center For Technology Ethics
 
ISTCS.org
Chair: W3C AIKR <https://www.w3.org/community/aikr/>  
 
 
A bit about me <https://about.me/paoladimaio> 
  <https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B5XeDqbLLqHSdFVDb0FGMm5vMVE&revid=0B5XeDqbLLqHSOVVJc09yeXI2SlY5OGNhTzdtVTJUUFc5UWh3PQ> 
 
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 7:56 PM, carl mattocks <carlmattocks@gmail.com> wrote:
I support including concept definitions for AI and KR and the compound AIKR in an AIKR Upper Ontology .. especially if they employ or are employed as normative references
 
Carl


It was a pleasure to clarify
 
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:59 AM, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you Carl
 
t thanks for the suggestion and link
 but then, we may have to agree on a definition for ;new;
are AI and KR new concepts? or are we trying to create new definitions for existing concepts
Lol
(disclosure: I belong to the pedantic camp)


Dr Paola Di Maio
Center For Technology Ethics
 
ISTCS.org
Chair: W3C AIKR <https://www.w3.org/community/aikr/>  
 
 
A bit about me <https://about.me/paoladimaio> 
  <https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B5XeDqbLLqHSdFVDb0FGMm5vMVE&revid=0B5XeDqbLLqHSOVVJc09yeXI2SlY5OGNhTzdtVTJUUFc5UWh3PQ> 
 
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 6:56 PM, carl mattocks <carlmattocks@gmail.com> wrote:
To help progress .. please consider using a page with content similar to 'concept creation' guidelines
 
·         
o    <https://wiki.idesg.kantarainitiative.org/wiki/index.php/Concept_Creation_Guidelines#What_sort_of_.27thing.27_is_this_proposed_concept_anyway.3F> 1.1 What sort of 'thing' is this proposed concept anyway?
o    <https://wiki.idesg.kantarainitiative.org/wiki/index.php/Concept_Creation_Guidelines#How_to_decide.3F_Is_it_important.3F> 1.2 How to decide? Is it important?
o    <https://wiki.idesg.kantarainitiative.org/wiki/index.php/Concept_Creation_Guidelines#Understanding_context> 1.3 Understanding context
o    <https://wiki.idesg.kantarainitiative.org/wiki/index.php/Concept_Creation_Guidelines#The_.22Conversation.22_is_valuable> 1.4 The "Conversation" is valuable
·         <https://wiki.idesg.kantarainitiative.org/wiki/index.php/Concept_Creation_Guidelines#Using_a_Meta-Model_.28or_two.29> 2 Using a Meta-Model (or two)
·         <https://wiki.idesg.kantarainitiative.org/wiki/index.php/Concept_Creation_Guidelines#Create_a_new_proposed_Concept> 3 Create a new proposed Concept
https://wiki.idesg.kantarainit iative.org/wiki/index.php/Conc ept_Creation_Guidelines <https://wiki.idesg.kantarainitiative.org/wiki/index.php/Concept_Creation_Guidelines> 
 
Carl Mattocks


It was a pleasure to clarify
 
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 1:55 AM, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you Milton
 
Do you have a way you'd like to propose the way forward?
 
Shall we just create two pages, where we collect existing definitions and come up with our own 
definition that possibly encompasses them all, thus delivers the broadest possible meaning?
 
Should the group be the 'owner' of these two definitions?
 
Let me know if you can initiate these two pages
 
P


Dr Paola Di Maio
Center For Technology Ethics
 
ISTCS.org
Chair: W3C AIKR <https://www.w3.org/community/aikr/>  
 
 
A bit about me <https://about.me/paoladimaio> 
  <https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B5XeDqbLLqHSdFVDb0FGMm5vMVE&revid=0B5XeDqbLLqHSOVVJc09yeXI2SlY5OGNhTzdtVTJUUFc5UWh3PQ> 
 
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 3:21 AM, ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program <metadataportals@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Paola and other members of the AIKR community group.
 
Two things we need to establish to reach a consensus of the area we are going to deal with.
 
Number one: the broadest possible definition of what constitutes "artificial intelligence" and number two what constitutes "knowledge representation" also in the broadest possible sense.
 
Only then can we assess what grounds we want or need to cover.
 
It is for that reason I proposed to create and overview map of what currently constitutes AI and related disciplines.
 
But I am also writing a definition paper using category theory to establish a generalized framework which introduces all possible categories of interacting entities, and utilizes a system to define boundaries for AI for interaction, as suggested by the likes of Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, Kurzweil and countless others.
 
regards
 
Milton Ponson
GSM: +297 747 8280
PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
Aruba, Dutch Caribbean
Project Paradigm: Bringing the ICT tools for sustainable development to all stakeholders worldwide through collaborative research on applied mathematics, advanced modeling, software and standards development
 
On Sunday, July 15, 2018 2:41 AM, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
 
Welcome newcomers (22 members!) 
there's a thread in the mailing list to intro yourselves at your convenience
 
Based on other work, and anticipating future developments
(Milton mentioned subgroups) I have created a page subgroups, and opened two additional pages as containers for future subgroups where some work may be needed (AI Ethics KR and Professional schemas).
Feel free to edit, add, enter etc
https://www.w3.org/community/a ikr/subgroups/ <https://www.w3.org/community/aikr/subgroups/> 
 
This is a bit ahead of us perhaps but things are moving fast to have the pages may be cognitive support. The professional schema entry may need better wording, I have not thought it property yet.
 
I have two issues with our home page, maybe W3C folks on this list can assist?
 
Here
https://www.w3.org/community/a ikr/ <https://www.w3.org/community/aikr/> 
 
 
1. The main text area of the page contains some duplicate text, I dont seem to be able to edit/access the upper portion of the group description, I have pinged Veronica Thom about this but have not yet had any reply. Maybe this was created by staff and I cannot edit? can someone assist
 
2. On the right hand sidebar, where it says 'categories' 
the categories which I created are not listed, can someone help?  
 
Thank you!!
 
PDM


Dr Paola Di Maio
Center For Technology Ethics
 
ISTCS.org
Chair: W3C AIKR <https://www.w3.org/community/aikr/>  
 
 
A bit about me <https://about.me/paoladimaio> 
  <https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B5XeDqbLLqHSdFVDb0FGMm5vMVE&revid=0B5XeDqbLLqHSOVVJc09yeXI2SlY5OGNhTzdtVTJUUFc5UWh3PQ>