Re: AIKR CG Plans and Leadership

Carl Own and all

Thank you for the suggestions

members are the leaders in this CG :-) of course

A report can be drafted  as soon as we have enough input from members

Here is  an updated form where members can enter their input  on  plan,
deliverables enter their contribution to the report and give availabilit to
co chair
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1dcl76uozxnpiiDYf2pf3TEPZeJbeiV2LEi2l_-NbvzI/edit


Here an older stakeholder survey, with 4 responses
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kKiC6VKZUzo7jvl1vkKyndI2S0HNa_vm2LaxIGzzjXo/edit#gid=1292343924


There you indicated your availability to co chair -  would you like to make
a statement
(ie add or change the group's initial manifesto?
https://www.w3.org/community/aikr/

Do you have a suggestion for the nomination process, or shall I just
nominate you (as the only person who gave availability so far) if nobody
has objections?
Anyone else up for nomination?

Let us know if you would like to suggest changes to this form and another
mechanism to elicit stakeholders inputs on the issues mentioned by Carl

We can then have the contents of the spread sheet exported from csv and
shaped into StratML

PDM

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 10:57 PM carl mattocks <carlmattocks@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Milton, Owen:
>
> I agree we need a plan that identifies AIKR deliverables.
> Building on the momentum created by the awareness work , I propose we use
> the STRATML created for the eGovernance as our startpoint. Specifically, we
> should  use the STRAML template to create a new AIKR plan and then connect
> it to the eGovenance STRATML subplan.
>
> Acknowledging that our current chair is overloaded with commitments , I
> also propose that we (1) confirm that we should continue as a CG and (2)
> elect  at least two members into leadership positions.
>
>
> Carl Mattocks
>
>
>
> It was a pleasure to clarify
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 10:43 PM Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Milton, while much of the content of your proposed report is beyond my
>> scope of knowledge and expertise, I volunteer to render in StratML format:
>>
>>     a) your outline for deliverables, as your plan, and
>>
>>     b) any set of recommendations for research and standardization that
>> may gain consensus in the CG, as the CG's proposed plan.
>>
>> If one exists, I'd also like to render your research institute's plan in
>> StratML format, particularly if it differs from a and b, above.
>>
>> BTW, this exchange prompted me to recall the proposal Denise Bedford and
>> I co-authored in 2013 to specify a Human Reference Model:
>> http://ambur.net/HRMProposal.pdf
>>
>> It appears MS is planning to address parts of that puzzle, in a
>> proprietary manner, in Project Cortex:
>> http://stratml.us/carmel/iso/MSPCwStyle.xml  The name they've chosen is
>> of special interest to me in light of its relationship to this article I
>> published nearly two years ago:
>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/i-only-had-brain-evolving-prefrontal-core-text-internet-owen-ambur/
>>
>> Owen
>> On 11/24/2019 10:10 PM, ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I myself, like you Paola and I must assume most of the members of this
>> Community Group would like to see a report written.
>>
>> Personally I am intent on getting some proposals for creation of
>> standards off the ground as well.
>>
>> I will look at what we have produced so far, and what we realistically
>> can produce in the next three months.
>>
>> I am in the process of setting up an applied research institute in which
>> AI will be a central theme.
>>
>> I will create an outline for deliverables, a wiki, and creating an
>> extensive literature review, and listing of existing institutes, global
>> programs and projects and a listing of existing standards relevant to AI,
>> KR, robotics and related subjects.
>>
>> All of this structured into a document with an introduction, history of
>> the subject, brief overview of current state of the art, guidelines
>> proposed by the UN, European Union etc,, and a set of our CG
>> recommendations for research and standardization, rounded off with an
>> extensive literature review and listings and directories could serve as the
>> initial deliverable.
>>
>> This document could then serve as a focus for further discussion in an IG
>> or production of new deliverables in a continued AIKR CG.
>>
>> Creating this deliverable will take 3 months, and because I have to
>> produce a similar deliverable for my research institute, in less than 3
>> months, I take it upon myself to get this deliverable produced with
>> collaboration from members of this CG.
>>
>> Volunteers for support and collaboration, comments, suggestions and ideas
>> are welcome.
>>
>> 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 Friday, November 22, 2019, 10:34:07 PM AST, Paola Di Maio
>> <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Greetings folks
>>
>> according to Ian at W3C, the main difference between between a CG and an
>> IG is
>>
>> *Community Groups often produce specifications (called
>> Community Group Reports). Interest Groups typically do not; they focus on
>> discussion. *
>>
>> I hope this group can produce a report, but because we have not seen
>> enough contributions
>> since the group started, and I am really busy working on research papers
>> and talks, and I am going to be for the next few months despite my wish to
>> produce something for this group I am struggling to keep up, I wonder if we
>> should
>> a) wait until someone perks up to contribute to write a group report,
>> b)  change this group to an interest group at some point soon
>>
>> Thoughts? Objections?
>> *Have a great weekend*
>>
>>
>> *PDM *
>>
>>
>>
>>