Re: AIKR CG Plans and Leadership

The AIKR GC's original plan is available in StratML format for both 
commenting and editing at http://stratml.us/drybridge/index.htm#W3C

Since the StratML XForm is not backed by a CMS or database, the edited 
file must be saved locally and then uploaded to the Web. Jorge Sanchez 
is working on backing his wizard version of the form 
<http://stratml.us/vionta/forms/wizard/0_mainform.xml> with a BaseX 
database.  I'm not sure when it might be usable but I trust he'd welcome 
usability feedback from this group.

In the meantime, I have begun demonstrating usage of the 
stratml:Relationship elements to document and link cross-walks among 
common and complementary objectives in multiple plans.  See, for 
example, this objective in my local community's draft comprehensive 
plan: 
http://connectedcommunity.net/hhi/OPDT.xml#_ed4a5fca-8e47-11e9-a62a-eb2c1e1ca46f 


Owen


On 11/25/2019 9:56 AM, carl mattocks 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 
> <mailto: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> <mailto: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
>>     /
>>
>>