W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-aikr@w3.org > May 2020

Re: KRID specification

From: carl mattocks <carlmattocks@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 06:50:45 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHtonunVzpr417ACtTy+fnYe2Mz0N4jNXjZJxVdvRgKbnmGziw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
Cc: W3C AIKR CG <public-aikr@w3.org>
Paola

KRID and other objects will be fully specified in the Core Ontology... We
are all doing this on a voluntary basis and have no drop dead date to
compete with. To keep our progress going it would be helpful if you
controlled your use of Not-to-be-trusted language.

Thanks
Carl

On Sun, May 24, 2020, 11:55 PM Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Carl,
> you mentioned KRID a couple of times, but never really said what it is nor
> provided any specification
> Please point us to  the relevnt references,  thanks
> (what is is? what purpose does it fulfil? in what context? following what
> mechanism?)
>
>
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 9:35 AM carl mattocks <carlmattocks@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Paola
>>
>> Please clarify  what you mean. Are you simply saying that KRID has not be
>> defined outside of AIKRCG discussions?
>> Carl
>>
>> On Sun, May 24, 2020, 9:27 PM Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Received on Monday, 25 May 2020 10:51:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 25 May 2020 10:51:12 UTC