Re: next steps Goals, Objectives

Thanks a lot Carl -
This looks great -


>    - -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)'.
>
> but not KRID
 KRID has not been created   explained, defined nor discussed anywhere
afaik KRID does not exist (yet)
so I think this statement is false


p

>
> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>