RE: welcome new members and AI map

The AIHLEG's "definition" of AI is now available in StratML format at http://stratml.us/drybridge/index.htm#AIHLEG 

The focus on the achievement of goals is encouraging.  It would be good if they were documented in an open, standard, machine-readable format like StratML, in which case AI could be more effectively applied to achieve them.

For objectives that are common, it is unfortunate that the value chain is commonly reinvented rather than referenced and reused -- particularly when other people's money is being spent, e.g., by government, scientific, and charitable organizations. http://stratml.us/references/oxygen/PerformancePlanOrReport20160216_xsd.htm#ValueChainStageType 

Owen

-----Original Message-----
From: Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com> 
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 10:39 PM
To: Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: public-aikr@w3.org
Subject: Re: welcome new members and AI map

Thank you Enrico
We should definitely use what is already available, if possible In addition to Milton comment, is everyone else happy with the definition shared by Enrico, and can we adopt it for this group, or does anyone have any suggestions for further elaboration/modification?

I am not happy about the fact that it's in PDF, for start. :-) excuse me but how absurd is that?
 Will read and share comments if any

PDM

On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 7:04 PM Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> you may want to refer to the much more solid document (and the map therein) produced on the 18th of December 2018 by the European Commission’s High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence: "A Definition of AI: Main Capabilities and Scientific Disciplines":
> https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/definition-artifici
> al-intelligence-main-capabilities-and-scientific-disciplines
>
> cheers
> --e.
>
> On 17 Dec 2018, at 08:29, Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Enrico
>
> nice to hear from you-
> thanks for reply
>
> Perhaps then, we could create a better version of this map How to go 
> about it?
>
> I started a concept map but have not yet finished the required reading 
> to complete it this is why I am happy to see someone else mapping the 
> domain, but not quite sure its correct, comprehensive enough-
>
> What I like is the map and the summary of AI subdomains, which is what 
> we started here
>
> we can then publish something that could be useful, given that you say 
> the representation in the article is wrong we should definitely try to 
> point it out
>
> PDM
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 3:21 PM Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote:
>
>
> On 17 Dec 2018, at 02:04, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> if people think this is good enough
>
>
> It is as bad as I can imagine.
> The symbolic and sub-symbolic parts are filled with non-sense, and lack all the relevant parts.
> What can we expect from a "tech investor and AI technologist" writing on Forbes?
> I don't even believe that the proposed tri-partition is a useful one.
> cheers
> --e.
>
>

Received on Friday, 4 January 2019 18:15:40 UTC