Re: Turtle & StratML

Dave, in undergraduate school, I majored in psychology and sociology.  I also completed all of the course work for a masters in psychology and remain highly interested in understanding human behavior.  So I'm open to learning more about how "chunks" of knowledge might be best represented outside human crania.  At this point my best understanding of that concept is called a "document" or "record" and the next step on a worldwide basis is to make them machine-readable, validating against standard schemas.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-readable_document
To enable more precise recall and well as more efficient and effective management of knowledge, one of the two proposals I made that prompted the CIO Council to charter the XML working group in 2000 was to apply standard XML metatags to records on a governmentwide basis:  http://ambur.net/GenesisXMLWG.htm  
At that time, I had no reason to think that XML might become the native format of the records themselves, a prospect to which I became enlightened with Microsoft made XML the native file format (albeit for style rather than substance/meaning) for all of the applications in the Office Suite in 2005. https://news.microsoft.com/2005/06/01/microsoft-makes-xml-the-file-format-for-the-next-version-of-microsoft-office/ 
With enactment of the OPEN Government Data Act, it appears that even Congress has now been enlightened.  https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/open-gov-data-act-machine-readable-records-owen-ambur/
Be that as it may, I'm intrigued by your observation that "rules are goal directed and actions can declare sub-goals" (what StratML calls "objectives") but I must confess that I don't have a clue as to what that means.  Can you show me?
BTW, in response to my question a number of years ago, an RDF partisan rather smugly told me the "graph" is the document.  I didn't suggest that he try to tell that to a judge in a court of law but I don't believe he'd get very far with that argument.  In effect, it seems to me that what those who deny the importance of the document are doing is creating unreliable records, at untold cost to the public.

Owen Amburhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/owenambur/


-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
To: Owen Ambur <owen.ambur@verizon.net>
Cc: public-aikr <public-aikr@w3.org>
Sent: Sun, Jul 14, 2019 7:04 am
Subject: Re: Turtle & StratML

Hi Owen,
The rule language uses graph traversal for conditions and graph mutation for actions. Rules are goal directed and actions can declare sub-goals along with their relationship to the parent goal. Using graphs for data, rules and goals gives a great deal of flexibility. The graph model is very close to Olaf Hartig’s RDF*. Graphs are layered on top of an object model that supports link annotations and differentiates links as chunk properties from links as relationships between chunks. This is essentially an amalgam of RDF and Property Graphs with inspiration from Psychology.
According to wikipedia: 

A chunk is a collection of basic familiar units that have been grouped together and stored in a person's memory. These chunks are able to be retrieved more easily due to their coherent familiarity. It is believed that people create higher order cognitive representations of the items within the chunk. The items are more easily remembered as a group than as the individual items themselves.

Best regards,    Dave


On 13 Jul 2019, at 16:37, Owen Ambur <owen.ambur@verizon.net> wrote:
Dave, your turtle/diagram optional display feature is pretty cool, at https://www.w3.org/WoT/demos/shrl/test.html.  
Seems like it might be worth documenting the in AIKR CG's performance report but I'm not sure either how I might make use of the capability you have provided or how to report it as an indicator of the CG's performance.
I look forward to learning.  I'd be especially interested to see how your capability might be applied to the StratML vocabulary and schemas:  http://stratml.us/#Part1 | http://stratml.us/#Part2 | http://stratml.us/#Part3 (Note: The latter has not been updated to harmonize with some relatively minor changes made to Parts 1 & 2 in the ANSI and ISO processes.)

Owen Amburhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/owenambur/


-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
To: Owen Ambur <ambur@verizon.net>
Sent: Thu, Jul 11, 2019 4:37 am
Subject: Re: disentangled representation?

I should have added that SHRL was an exploration I did several years ago on RDF shape constraints based upon ATNs. It makes use of JavaScript libraries including a model for GraphViz for the visualisation as graph diagrams.  Graph shapes are promising for rule conditions. Rule actions either update the graphs or invoke external actions, e.g. to display query results.


On 11 Jul 2019, at 09:21, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> wrote:

Hi Owen,
I plan to provide a Web demonstrator along with GitHub documentation and issue tracker.  The work would occur in phases: the first phase is to explore the design space for condition-action rules operating over a generalised form of graphs. The next phase is to integrate the stochastic memory retrieval model from ACT-R, and to explore mechanisms for reinforcement learning of rule sets. The third phase applies this to machine learning of ontologies, and to demonstrate a broad range of different kinds of reasoning.  In parallel, with all of these phases, there is a need to gather representative use cases. Rules will be modelled as graphs, as a basis for compiling declarative knowledge to procedural knowledge. You can get a feel for this from:
 https://www.w3.org/WoT/demos/shrl/test.html
The rightmost drop down allows you to switch between text based and diagram based representations.
Best regards,    Dave


On 11 Jul 2019, at 02:50, Owen Ambur <ambur@verizon.net> wrote:
Dave, if your plan comes together, I'd like to render it in StratML format.

Owen Amburhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/owenambur/


-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
To: Owen Ambur <owen.ambur@verizon.net>
Cc: public-aikr <public-aikr@w3.org>
Sent: Sun, Jul 7, 2019 4:51 am
Subject: Re: disentangled representation?

Hi Owen,
We seem to have very different goals. I want to find people interested in discussing the technical research challenges, e.g. to identify representative use cases that illustrate the requirements for computational models, and the corresponding implications for declarative and procedural knowledge.


On 6 Jul 2019, at 20:45, Owen Ambur <owen.ambur@verizon.net> wrote:
Hey, Dave, I see nothing with which to disagree in your response.  
Here's how I'm trying to reduce the needless cost of #gofapu while improving the practice of self-governance: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/transforming-governance-reducing-cost-gofpau-owen-ambur/ 
See also StratML use cases:




Goal 7: Individuals - Publish on the Web in open, standard, machine-readable format the plans of individuals.

Goal 8: Political Parties - Publish political party platforms on the Web in open, standard, machine-readable format.Goal 9: Candidates for Elective Office - Publish the issue statements of candidates for elective office as performance plans on the Web in open, standard, machine-readable format.Goal 10: Elected Representatives - Upon election, flesh out the candidates' plans to document more explicit stakeholder roles and performance indicators for their performance in office.

I'll look forward to learning about your plan ... and perhaps rendering it in open, standard, machine-readable StratML format.
Owen Amburhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/owenambur/


-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
To: Owen Ambur <owen.ambur@verizon.net>
Cc: public-aikr <public-aikr@w3.org>
Sent: Sat, Jul 6, 2019 3:30 pm
Subject: Re: disentangled representation?

Hmm, a simpler interpretation is that feelings and emotions are computations that guide our behaviour in respect to our goals and our social interactions with others. Some of this further relates to fast vs slow modes of thinking as popularised by Daniel Kahneman:
"System 1 and System 2 are two distinct modes of decision making: System 1 is an automatic, fast and often unconscious way of thinking. It is autonomous and efficient, requiring little energy or attention, but is prone to biases and systematic errors. System 2 is an effortful, slow and controlled way of thinking."
This is all too evident in how people think about politics, and for me, suggests that as we work on developing strong AI, we need to ensure that AI systems have feelings along with empathy and compassion, and avoid the lazy ways of thinking that far too many humans use in respect to politics and society.
If anyone is actually interested in working on the practical aspects of this, please contact me directly.


On 6 Jul 2019, at 18:50, Owen Ambur <owen.ambur@verizon.net> wrote:
In Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain, David Eagleman downplays the role of consciousness in determining our behavior, most of which is on autopilot.  https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/consciously-connected-communities-owen-ambur/ 
In Against Empathy: The Case for RationalCompassion, Paul Bloom says, "Whensome people think about empathy, they think about kindness.  I think about war." (p. 188)
While the math eludes me, the broader logic seems clear:

Do we want to use our powers of reasoning merely to justify our emotions, after-the-fact, as seems to be natural for us?  And should we use AI to augment (accentuate) the expression of our emotions ... as "social" networking services tend to do?  (It seem like mind altering drugs might be more efficiently and effectively applied for that purpose.)  
Or might we prefer to apply logic (math) to improve the outcomes of our actions?  

Which of those two alternatives might make us "feel" better (be more satisfied) in the long run?

Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/RaggettW3C Data Activity Lead & W3C champion for the Web of things 








Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/RaggettW3C Data Activity Lead & W3C champion for the Web of things 







Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/RaggettW3C Data Activity Lead & W3C champion for the Web of things 






Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/RaggettW3C Data Activity Lead & W3C champion for the Web of things 







Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/RaggettW3C Data Activity Lead & W3C champion for the Web of things