Re: Fwd: Some comments on the description of this group

Viorel

thank you,

I wonder if you could give a brief narrative description of this diagram,
some commentary and context

You should be able to upload it/link the image and narrative  to our
group's pages, let me know
if you need help with that


Dr Paola Di Maio






On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:22 PM Viorel Milea <milea.danviorel@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Paola,
>
> Perhaps the attached diagram will be useful.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Viorel
>
>
> [image: Mailtrack]
> <https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality5&> Sender
> notified by
> Mailtrack
> <https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality5&> 11/01/18,
> 3:15:13 PM
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 2:03 PM Vinay K. Chaudhri <
> vinay_chaudhri@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Paola,
>>
>> For R&N, please see:
>> https://www.amazon.com/Artificial-Intelligence-Approach-Stuart-Russell/dp/9332543518/
>>
>> For AAAI's efforts in this area, please see:
>> https://aitopics.org/misc/about
>>
>> There is, obviously, room for contribution.
>>
>> These days to impact web standards, a viable approach seems to be to join
>> an internet company (or at least, start by securing their support :-)
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Vinay.
>>
>> On 10/31/2018 12:25 AM, Paola Di Maio wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>