Re: KRID

Milton
Thanks for critique. I am in total agreement about the complexity of the
challenge. I also agree that using
information ( and Data) science methods are essential... Especially if
augmented by AI Strategist plans.

Carl



On Mon, May 25, 2020, 12:02 PM ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program <
metadataportals@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I would like to DISAGREE on the UNIQUENESS of a KRID. Whereas in linked
> data and semantic web technologies we can create UNIQUE identifiers for
> data, this is not the case for knowledge. In our modern world thousands of
> scientific domains of discourse exist, and even agreeing upon uniquely
> naming each of these can get us into trouble.
>
> There will always be ambiguity in knowledge, both in the domains of
> discourse or instances or identified objects therein. The closest we will
> get is unique coding systems as used in library information systems.
>
> The problem is natural language, its richness allows us multiple ways to
> exactly describe the same things, and just like there are synonyms in
> natural language, there are competing terminologies in similar but slightly
> different domains of discourse.
>
> Milton Ponson
> GSM: +297 747 8280
> PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
> Aruba, Dutch Caribbean
> Project Paradigm: Bringing the ICT tools for sustainable development to
> all stakeholders worldwide through collaborative research on applied
> mathematics, advanced modeling, software and standards development
>
>
> On Saturday, May 23, 2020, 10:21:00 PM ADT, Paola Di Maio <
> paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Paul
>
>
> KRID
> A Knowledge Resource IDentifier is the unique name for a particular
> Instance of discourse.
>
>
> who says that? where is this stated?  to what discourse does this apply?
> what type of instance, in which context?
>
> It thus becomes a reference point for any discussion of that instance. If
> this KRID is stable then it becomes THE reference point for ALL discussions
> of that instance.
>
>
> very premature to talk about stability, when this identified has not yet
> been defined sufficiently to be able to talk about it
>
> I cannot comment on the rest of your email until I see the taxonomy for
> KRID
> please start the definition of KRID in a document, its purpose and explain
> what kind of values would be there,
> so that we can understand what you are talking about?
>
> Thanks!!
>
>
>
>
> In an XML report knowledge is gathered into its repository (roughly a
> storage array)
> Information like:
>
>    -  Operational information -  its position in the report
>    - And some meta data like tag-name, attributes and values, value after
>    the tag, peer resolution, etc.
>
> All of this information needs to be collected under an instance
> identifier. The KRID developed for an XML report is by nature unstable. It
> only exists for the moment of the XML.
>
> BUT we can find a stable KRID IF add more information to our repository by
> including the XSD’s knowledge. Like a definition identifier and its text.
> And it’s this definition identifier as a KRID that is  stable across ALL
> XML reports in this XSD’s format.
>
> One of the Goals of The AIKR group is to:
>  Discover, name and define the usage of XSD information items that can be
> added to XML repositories. In AI (machine learning or neural networks) this
> KRID names the input/information feed CONSISTENTLY for ALL XML reports in
> this XSD format.
>
> Other information comes from the XSD that can be applied to the XML
> report. Like
> -  a format identifier and its text,
> - The provenance (history or lineage) of this “Tag”,  the parsing workflow.
> format : is this date month/day/year? Or year/month/day? Is this 24 hour
> time? Or AM/PM?
> Provenance: that a “Goal” has a string format is useful but answering
> “Who’s goal under WHAT circumstances” is important too. (see also below for
> more). NOTE: To provide provenance AIKR processes  MUST follow the rules
> laid out by our standards .
> - The Parsing workflow: with the advent of “wizards” the validation has
> been “worked out” (well until the next version of the XSD comes out) .
> “worked out” also means that Validation is reduced to a developer's
> afterthought. But with KRID based repositories we can perform extra-session
> analysis across XML reports.
> like:
> Rooting: reducing words to their roots by removing the prefix and suffix.
> “Precasts”  becomes ‘cast’. Also capitalization is reduced to lower case.
> This produces a set of search contenders.
>
> Acronymization:
>
>    - coring: cores like the dublin core have definitions for known
>    phrases like :
>
> “Author of” or
> “Date of publication”
>
>    - Industrial cores: all industries have their jargon (a tennis court
>    is very different from a municipal court , “playing ball” means different
>    things )
>
> Categorization: by usage of different cores for acronymization industrial
> categories can be registered.
>
> Patterns: phone numbers have a unique pattern, as do zip codes, URI’s and
> filenames. All of these add to our knowledge.
>
> Framing and frame completion:
> Framing simply is the discovery of the largest domain under a reduced tag.
> A “reduced tag” is an endpoint  in a provenance chain.
> This point can have several value choices, the collection of which is
> called its domain.
> From one XML to the next XML the largest set can be collected. Thereafter
> this set can be offered to the XML creator as a possible set of options. OR
> offered to the XML report creator as an option for expansion or improvement.
>
>
>
> definitions:
> In data science we acknowledge:
> Dominion:  the “table” in an SQL Database is the dominion of discourse. In
> object class definition we acknowledge the class to be the dominion.
>
> Attribute: column names in an SQL database.
>
> Peers: a set of attributes associated with a dominion.
>
> Attribute;value pair: an attribute AND its value (one of its Domain values)
>
> Dominion instance or instance: An instance is a named or keyed set of peer
> attributes in a Dominion
>
> Instance key: the unique name or set of attribute;value pairs that
> uniquely identify this instance.
>
> Domain: for each attribute there can exist a set of values called the
> “domain” of that attribute.
>
> Provenance:
> https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-aq/
> Provenance records for dynamic and context-dependent resources are
> possible through a notion of constrained resources. A constrained resource
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-aq/#dfn-constrained-resource> is simply a
> resource (in the sense defined by [WEBARCH
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-aq/#bib-WEBARCH>], section 2.2
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#id-resources>) that is a specialization or
> instance of some other resource. For example, a W3C specification typically
> undergoes several public revisions before it is finalized. A URI that
> refers to the "current" revision might be thought of as denoting the
> specification throughout its lifetime. Each individual revision would also
> have its own target-URI <https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-aq/#dfn-target-uri>
> denoting the specification at that particular stage in its development.
> Using these, we can make provenance assertions that a particular revision
> was published on a particular date, and was last modified by a particular
> editor
>
>
>
>
> Paul
> Thoughts? , comments?
>
> Thanks
> PAUL ALAGNA
> PJAlagna@Gmail.com <PJAlagna@gmail.com>
> 732-322-5641
>
>
>
>