Fwd: Some comments on the description of this group

Vinay

Thanks a lot for your questions, see my comments below  in italics
but of course , everyone, please feel free to address Vinay's qs as you see
fit
although I initiated this, it belongs to all members

>
> ~~~~~
> The overall goal/mission of this community group is to explore the
> requirements, best practices and implementation options for the
> conceptualization and specification of domain knowledge in AI.
> ~~~~~
> "Conceptualization and specification of domain knowledge" reminds of the
> expert systems era and a family of techniques that have little overlap with
> the current ML approaches. While in silicon valley, ML and AI are largely
> used interchangeably, those with some historical perspective, recognize the
> evolution of techniques. For consider this video that explains the DARPA
> perspective on AI to encompass three phases of AI.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O01G3tSYpU
>

*thanks *

>
> It will be helpful for this group to refine its description of the set of
> AI techniques that are of interest.
>

*thanks, I ll watch and take input but everyone feel free!*

>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> We plan to place particular emphasis on the identification and the
> representation of AI facets and various aspects (technology, legislation,
> ethics etc) with the purpose to facilitate knowledge exchange and reuse.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> The above statement, even though, appears agnostic to the specific
> technique being used, but really pertains to the second phase (ie,
> ML-oriented) techniques.
>

*uhm, why do you think so? If anything  it refers to multifaceting of
knowledge domain modelling tech**niques (thats where I get the idea from)
but it could be that multifaceting also used in ML? *

  These days we do not hear too many people talking about the legislation
> and ethics around the first-phase (ie, rule-based) techniques.
>
> *part of the problem we are trying to address, perhaps? *

> ~~~~~~~~
> Therefore the proposed outcomes could be instrumental to research and
> advancement of science and inquiry, as well as to increase the level of
> public awareness in general to enable learning and participation.
> ~~~~~~~~~
> There are other efforts to educate public about AI. E.g., there is an AI
> for K-12 initiative, and AAAI engages in considerable outreach to general
> community. It is not clear to me why a W3C group needs to be devoted to
> this problem.
>
> *the way I see it:  *
*'education' is not just for schools, but for everyone who continues to
learn-and we must*

   - *AI (in various forms) are powering our information systems AND the
   web (the way the web works, and the doesnt work etc)*
   - *W3C is among other things a standardization body for the web*
   - *plus:  W3C community groups and workgroups are  highly collaborative,
   open to read and write, and fairly inclusive by design*
   - *If  *we manage to construct somethingk, this could become a WG and
   possibly a starndard


These  reasons for me* make a unique and compelling argument in support of
an open collaborative forum which could serve **XAI among other things*
*do we need a web stardard for XAI?  I think so, maybe*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> * Proposed outcomes:*
>
>    - A comprehensive list of open access resources
>    <https://www.w3.org/community/aikr/welcome/ai-kr-task-list/knowledge-sources-for-ai-kr/>
>    in both AI and KR (useful to teaching and research)
>    - A set of metadata
>    <https://www.w3.org/community/aikr/welcome/ai-kr-task-list/metadata/>
>    derived from these resources
>    - A concept map <https://www.w3.org/community/aikr/concept-maps/> of
>    the domain
>    - A natural language vocabulary to represent various aspects of AI
>    - One or more encoding/implementations/ machine language version of
>    the vocabulary, such as ChatBot Natural Language Understanding & Natural
>    Language Generation
>    - Methods for KR management, especially Natural Language Learning /
>    Semantic Memory
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> These sound like useful set of outcomes, but it is not clear who are they
> meant for, and who is it going to use them?
> There may already exist such resources in some sub-areas, e.g., NLP tools,
> ontology editors, etc.
>

*The problem that I think we face is that there is 'no shared
conceptualization' for AI (using an old metaphore) and no common language
(the same argument that we would make if we wanted to come up with, say an
ontology for AI.  I have not seen any resources or public effort devoted to
this, but if you do please point is, because a collaboration would
definitely be on, I think*

There is also some degree of coverage of these topics in the standard
> textbooks such as R&N.
>
*url plz?  the degree of coverage I have seen so far is not fit for purpose
(see above) but again, please point us*


> Are you proposing to write a book? build a catalogue?
>
either/both/neither
*I am not proposing anything at the moment, but the ideas above sound good
if useful*
*we could also do a movie :-) (or rather an educational video)*
*what I personally aim for is to clarify what is AI (for the purpose of
accountability and reliability) since there is a lot of hype and confusion
being propagated at the moment*


> Should you be working with AAAI on these?
>
*I am a member o AAAI (or I was at some point) is there a discussion group
on AI?*
*A web page? please feel free to enter related efforts in the google form
linked on the group home page, or post here *


> How would you maintain them as things change?
>
*If there are people devoted to the maintenance, future generations can
maintain*
*if nobody is around to follow up, the outcomes would become frozen in
time, or fossilized*
*as a testimony of our restlessness around the issues at hand*

Tell us more about you



> Best Wishes,
> Vinay.
>
>
>