W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-aikr@w3.org > May 2020

Re: KRID specification

From: carl mattocks <carlmattocks@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 18:51:52 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHtonun23cyf=OQRg3HutoDGL0yS_rJe8vusx7yWLxbyf+CuDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
Cc: W3C AIKR CG <public-aikr@w3.org>
Yes - KRID is a work in progress.

Carl
It was a pleasure to clarify


On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 6:42 PM Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Received on Monday, 25 May 2020 22:52:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 25 May 2020 22:52:44 UTC