Re: KRID specification

Paola

Yes. Making AIKR trustworthy is the objective of all AI practitioners. Your
tautological argument may seem like a test but a machine could not easily
use as a reasoning mechanism. A core ontology is a taxonomic device that
should be acceptable as a start point.

Please critique

Carl




On Mon, May 25, 2020, 7:07 AM Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com> wrote:

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