Re: KRID specification

Carl
Is not a test - its a question a request to support a statement with the
fact
(in the absence of which an argument is false)

Machine does what the human programs machine to do -

machines can very easily parse the false/true construct,  as the most
elemental form of binary computation
0-1
however they can be tricked - like humans - into thinking that what is
false is true
(by false assertions) -

This is the role of KR (truth preservation) in the context of ML  and AI

Simply please show the fact to which the statement you are making
corresponds to -
where is KRID used ?

etc or correct your statement to say that KRID is something you re thinking
about that you would like to use
rather than something you are using already

But still you would need to present it in some form, what kind of property
values you figure would be in there etc
I asked you recently but you did not reply

pdm







pdm



On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 9:03 PM carl mattocks <carlmattocks@gmail.com>
wrote:

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