- From: carl mattocks <carlmattocks@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 09:03:32 -0400
- To: Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
- Cc: W3C AIKR CG <public-aikr@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAHtonu=b3f2ps-d+e2mtwAMLVr5fMhmf+uhGggWNkHsEcHzOrQ@mail.gmail.com>
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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Received on Monday, 25 May 2020 13:03:59 UTC