Re: KRID specification

Carl!

Thank you for clarifying  but...... this statement  below, unless I am
mistaken, is not true (afaik)

  -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)'.

uh?
please  explain what is it, and show how /where is KRID used, if it is not
even defined anywhere and whatever has been mentioned has only in been in
passing  so far (that something iike a KRID property could be useful,
although  not related to stratml from my understanding of what you said)

f something is not true, is definitely not to be trusted
I suspect is the statement like these that are not to be trusted


If I have used the wrong language I am the one to apologize but it looks
this statement is false
  But please correct me if I am wrong



pdm







On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 6:50 PM carl mattocks <carlmattocks@gmail.com>
wrote:

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