Re: Fwd: thoughts on SOS, participatory agenda setting etc

Dear All,
A few comments:
The interoperability is an important component of what I think we should be addressing, but what we should not forget is that we need to from the mathematical, logical and computational points of view, find a common ground to incorporate all relevant issues, whether about what the KR should cover, the domains of discourse for knowledge to be included, the intended use of the specific A, and social, ethical etc. aspects involved.
In simple terms which categories of Knowledge-->Knowledge Representation-->AI-->AI Applications Domains-->Impacts
And here is where Category Theory becomes useful.
Will also be creating some simple diagrams to make things visible in terms of formal representation and interrelated issues, disciplines using the above drill down concept string. 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, March 8, 2019 12:11 AM, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
 

 
Dear AIKR @W3C
After some pondering, I think I have identify a sense of scope  and direction forthe work we could do here, which should be feasible
This  group was started to attempt to address great confusionand lack of orientation in the AI community, in particular in relation to AI ethics (ethics rests on transparency, accountability, understandability etc)
It is becoming clearer to me that KR - a minimal set of explicitly represented concepts and terms - could helpto address at least one problem, the lack of interoperability and lack of accessibilityof the standards being devised around AI ethics from the various standardization bodies
I am therefore sharing a few slides which I created for an IEEE  workgroup to explain what I see the work could be, the focus is the actual KR of the standard itself, but the arguments applyto all the standards and efforts in progress
Part1https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aQxAYjUNYrsf_5qeHqP0O3FGOpermWAx/view
part 2https://drive.google.com/open?id=1i0mYTX2ylyGKu8glmaA-QxInmVVWeeFN
(hope these links work)
sorry if I mumble a bit, may have to re-narrate when I have time
Comments, thoughts?
Can we as a W3C WG aim to capture some common denominator among different standardsand aim to produce a set of metadata to represent AI ethical concerns in some kind ofschematic, implementation independent way?
I will then start drafting a paper as promised
PDM