next steps Goals, Objectives

Tuesday May 26th is the last scheduled meeting of the series focused on
Leveraging the StratML specification for Trustworthy AIKR  .. with a
Walk-the-talk focus of using StratML for AIKR,.

During our meetings we have benefited from the deep expertise of Owen ,
Chris & Jorge and agreed that :


   - AIKRCG Strategy can readily be defined using the Vocabulary and
   Template of the international standard StratML part 1
   - AIKRCG can use StratMl part1 & part 2 to EXPLAIN   how to 'Evaluate
   Trustworthy AIKR objects implemented by machine learning powered services'
   - AIKRCG will supplement the elements/attributes/tags StratMl XSD and
   XML with Knowledge objects that have KRId's to apply Knowledge-directed
   Artificial Intelligence Reasoning Over Schemas (KAIROS) DARPA-SN-19-19 .
   Towards that objective :
   -StratML is our Schema start point  for reasoning, as in, the
   performance of AIKR   inference
   <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inferences&sa=D&usd=2&usg=AOvVaw1D43jdE07rstabANlhFpqL>s
is scoped
   / weighed by the declared strategy.
   -AIKR reasoning uses KRID identifiers and data
   (aka metadata) properties, such as KR TYPE that has a value-set that
   includes ' Declarative'-, 'Imperative  (aka procedural)'.


based on these agreements we are confident that a near-term outcome of our
effort will include:

   - The AIKRCG Strategy which is published for human and machine
   consumption.
   - An AIKRCG demonstration, for humans and machines, explaining how an AI
   Strategist can produce a performance plan for AIKR objects implemented by
   machine learning powered services that are measured by Key Performance
   Indicators (KPIs)
   - An AIKRCG constructed core ontology (for human and machines) populated
   with the essential concepts and distinctions required for
Knowledge-directed
   Artificial Intelligence Reasoning Over StratMl Schemas supplemented
by Knowledge
   objects with KRIDs


At the close of Tuesdays meeting we will discuss next steps -please reply
to this email if you have Goals, Objectives that should be discussed

thanks

Carl Mattocks
Co-Chair AIKRCG








It was a pleasure to clarify


On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 10:30 PM Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Carl
>
> all conversation and exchanges about these CG activities are carried out
> through the public mailing list
> (private exchanges are not part of the CG activities as such)  This is why
> meetings should be publicly announced
> on the mailing list and discussions/decisions documented in some form (I
> now understand that the meetings you are coordinating every other tuesday
> are about stratml adoption rather than about the CG activities in general)
>
> Look forward to learn more about what you have in mind for KRID
>
>
> pdm
> -
>
>
> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 10:07 AM carl mattocks <carlmattocks@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Strongly suggest that the CG not be copied on one to one discussions.
>>
>> Carl
>>
>> On Sat, May 23, 2020, 9:56 PM Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Carl
>>> yes, we agreed to continue the discussion via email
>>> and I have posted the questions in an email to follow up our agreement
>>>
>>> but now I dont understand why Paul is replying - you mentioned KRID as
>>> your own contribution
>>> (if I remember correctly)  I would have expected the reply to come from
>>> you
>>>
>>> I have no preconditions on any topics, and I dont understand what is
>>> prompting your question
>>> what makes you ask?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 9:52 AM carl mattocks <carlmattocks@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paola
>>>>
>>>> We have agreed to continue our discussions via email .. if you have
>>>> preconditions about what topics can be included please let everyone know.
>>>>
>>>> Carl
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, May 23, 2020, 9:43 PM Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>>  simply trying to figure out what type of values you identify in the
>>>>> KRID according to what logic and schema
>>>>> and where (what domain) would that be applicable to and to solve what
>>>>> problem-
>>>>>
>>>>> I dont have an expectation as such -  but I figure anything that makes
>>>>> sense would do
>>>>> when I asked the question to Carl what exactly is KRID ( the KRID
>>>>> proposal emanated from Carl, so I expect Carl to send replies if this
>>>>> proposal comes from you, maybe you need to clarify that also)
>>>>> he said he would see a top level distinction between declarative and
>>>>> procedural
>>>>>
>>>>> i then sent an email pondering a few points about that and you reply
>>>>> Please start a document where you specify what is KRID and how you
>>>>> envision it to work
>>>>> then we can talk about it' at the moment, it is very difficult to have
>>>>> an intelligent exchange about it :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> pdm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 9:32 AM carl mattocks <carlmattocks@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Paola et Al
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please outline your expectations for a taxonomy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carl
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, May 23, 2020, 9:18 PM Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul-
>>>>>>> Thanks for reply
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *  In the parsing of a StratML XSD I found that:  *
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is what the question is about -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What did you parse the text with?
>>>>>>> Please share the parser and the output so that we can make better
>>>>>>> sense of your observations?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> pdm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 4:19 AM Paul Alagna <pjalagna@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> namespace hiccup2
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <Paola> pls say how did you process the file- </
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what you meant by your question
>>>>>>>> but it sounded to me like "how did you get to realize this?" So,
>>>>>>>> I'll answer that one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Aside from the initial white space, the area of information for an
>>>>>>>> XML / XSD document is the beginning brace character "<" up to but not
>>>>>>>> including the next brace character "<"; inner split by a ">" token.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IE <stuff1>stuff2|"<" this "area of information" is also known as a
>>>>>>>> "fragment"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The XSD standard has rules about what information items are
>>>>>>>> contained in "stuff1" and "stuff2"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In "stuff1" attributes are recorded in the format
>>>>>>>> attributeName="attributeValue". If an attribute name is further split into:
>>>>>>>> namespaceName ":" localName then further processing is called for.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The XSD standard for namespaces says that a secondary XSD of that
>>>>>>>> namespace exists and that a workflow (XSD fragment) for the localName will
>>>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is accomplished through 3 part mechanism:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1-the namaspace XSD file is declared in the schema statement using
>>>>>>>> the "xmlns:" prefix such as <schema xmlns:foo="http//foo---" (oddly without
>>>>>>>> the .xsd ending )
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2- the namespace required is named in the attribute name AND/OR
>>>>>>>> value.
>>>>>>>> like: <element xsd:ref="foo:Fullname"
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3- that an XSD record exists in the namespace XSD:
>>>>>>>> IE <element name=localName-----..</element> existing in foo.xsd
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the parsing of a StratML XSD I found that:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The StratML.xsd calls for a stratml:Name and but the schema pointer
>>>>>>>> "xmlns:stratml=" does NOT point to a valid URI.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is from the StratML.xsd itself
>>>>>>>> xmlns:stratml="urn:ISO:std:iso:17469:tech:xsd:stratml_core"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After a little digging I made the assumption that the usage
>>>>>>>> intended was to use the StratML.xsd as the secondary namespace XSD, in
>>>>>>>> addition to being the guiding XSD for stratML XML reports.  Because the
>>>>>>>> <element name="Name" XSD fragment does exist in this very document,
>>>>>>>> I can continue on. "I" can continue because I'm a human.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any automatic processes like the AIKR information extraction tools
>>>>>>>> we are defining and building MUST follow the rules laid out by our
>>>>>>>> standards and the standards we dictate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>> Thoughts? , comments?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>> PAUL ALAGNA
>>>>>>>> PJAlagna@Gmail.com <PJAlagna@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> 732-322-5641
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>