Re: group's quick updates, and have a nice summer all

Milton and Dave

before presenting the proposal to this CG, (will follow soon) I have been
working towards a scholarly publication, which needs to be original work so
that we have a citation (which may or may not be important but it can help
to demonstrate the originality and value of the proposed contribution)

This is why I have not shared it here yet- I need to have
original/unpublished work to get a citable reference for this work but more
importantly, I need a compact and coherent argument to present to the CG so
that members can understand what is being proposed.This is the purpose
having a paper, which was a draft until recently and finally by sacrificing
summer time, is now with the publisher and I am getting ready to disclose
it here. I doubt people in this CG want to read twenty odd pages of rather
boring scholarly stuff, but I can sum up the main points into a PPT and a
few diagrams as son as the paper is published. The timeframe for completing
a draft standard is 24 months.

 To capture the state of the art in AI KR is by all means not trivial, to
advance the state of the art is also very non trivial, this is why it is
taking time, once we have original work published, the novelty in the
proposed approach cannot be disputed by those lacking vision in the AI
research community.  They are the ones who have been creating  problems in
the last twenty years.

After  years of researching the subject, I have now defined a set of
problems, and  a solution, which could make a nice open standard (discussed
briefly with Richard during a call while I was still formulating ideas)

Before I could present these ideas here I needed  to evaluate the soundness
of the proposed approach, in the same way as I would evaluate anybody elses
proposed approach.

For that we will need the WG, and if that happens,  we ll seek consensus
from the WG members to advance the proposal to standard.

 If that does not happen, the work done to date will still be original
work. so that can be used by anyone who finds it useful (hopefully cited,
not plagiarized)  even if it does not become a standard, it can be the
basis for maturing body of work and industry support at anytime in the
future

DaveL *Did you see: Neuro-Symbolic Approaches for Knowledge
Representation in Expert Systems, 2004, Ioannis Hatzilygeroudis and Jim
Prentzas?*
Yes of course, my work builds on that

Regarding the scope of work, cognitive systems, and the universe, this is
all interesting and desirable but to ensure feasibility within the
resources available (specifically my limited time on this earth) we need to
be rigorous with the scope of what is being proposed.

We will never agree on everything about the universe, but we have run out
of lifetime arguing which may not be critical to our mission.

The solution I have come up with is feasible and tested (I can do it by
myself as a research project, or we can do it here as a WG project if we
get enough interest) and extensible. it can be reused, modified and
extended to cover any domain and scaled up to tackle any range of problems
in other domains. I ll be glad to see how my contribution can help to
address the range of areas that you Milton and Dave mention, in fact, I ll
be happy to work on use cases

  I personally need to cap my contribution to this field because I am
moving on to  tackle other challenges, and because the industry and the
world will not change, with or without  us.  But our published words will
hopefully remain, even if they'll become buried and plagiarized by others.
Scholarly plagiarism is one of the areas I ll apply the expertise gained
via AI KR on

By the end of the summer I ll share the proposal here with a call for
support to promote to WG, for those who
I can commit another term 12-14 months to promote the group to CG based on
a defined and feasible proposal, or move on,

Outline of the proposal follows,

P




On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 3:10 AM Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 15 Aug 2022, at 16:45, ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program <
> metadataportals@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Paola,
>
> Is there a consensus on what constitutes neurosymbolic knowledge
> representation? Can you list the documents for review in order for us to
> propose and upgrade to WG?
>
>
> Indeed, as proposing a WG seems rather premature.  Drafting a WG charter
> is something to do when there is a mature body of work and clear industry
> support for the proposed direction.
>
> Did you see: Neuro-Symbolic Approaches for Knowledge Representation in
> Expert Systems, 2004, Ioannis Hatzilygeroudis and Jim Prentzas? I reckon
> that that work is rather dated, but it was placed early in the search
> results for neurosymbolic knowledge representation!
>
> I think the idea is fine, but we need to create a proposal that covers
> more than just AI, by looking how AI is used in various fields to deal with
> formalizing and representing knowledge.
>
> High energy physics, conformal field theory, quantum physics, theoretical
> and elementary particle physics, biochemistry, computational linguistics,
> neuroscience, mathematics and machine learning.
>
>
> What about cognitive science, sociology and psychology? I would expect to
> include support for human cognition and natural language semantics at the
> very least. This is something I am progressing with my work on plausible
> reasoning.  It builds upon symbols together with qualitative parameters and
> emulating human memory, along with unconscious and conscious thought.
>
> All of these use common concepts and formal systems and knowledge
> representation systems. If we can find a set of common concepts and
> knowledge representation systems , it will be much easier to come up with a
> viable proposal.
>
>
> I wouldn’t insist on formal systems as we are still at an early stage of
> understanding human cognition and premature formalisation is likely to act
> as a brake on open thinking. If you have invested in an expensive hammer,
> then everything looks rather like a nail.
>
> I find the term neurosymbolic a bit limitative. What we are looking for is
> interchangeable (homomorphic) KR systems that can be mapped to cognitive
> architecture or neuroscience based modeling.
>
>
> Quite so, apart from your use of “homomorphic”.  I very much support the
> idea of distinguishing between functional high level representations and
> the multitude of potential lower level representations, including,
> cognitive databases, noisy vector spaces, pulsed neural networks and so
> forth, each of which will have pros and cons.
>
> p.s. I have recently expanded my demo to include analogical reasoning in
> preparation for a plenary talk I am giving next month at the workshop on
> analogies from theory to applications, see: https://iccbr-ata2022.loria.fr.
> My web-based demo can be found at:
> https://www.w3.org/Data/demos/chunks/reasoning/. I am now busily working
> on implementing the algorithms that deal with computing likelihood given a
> suite of qualitative parameters, inspired by pioneering work by Alan
> Collins and his colleagues in the 1980’s.
>
>
> I will send a couple of links to interesting takes on knowledge and
> knowledge representation.
>
> 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 Monday, August 15, 2022 at 02:17:58 AM AST, Paola Di Maio <
> paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hope everyone is having a good summer and getting lazy time
> and welcome to new members
> Please share your version of the classic summertime tune, if you have any
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVUOtLLGv2w&ab_channel=DennisTschirner%7CVocalist>
>
> I was hoping to be totally away from the computer, but got busy catching
> up deadlines, I am however managing to spend time on the beach almost every
> day, which means I am at least half on summer holiday. I hope this much for
> you all, at a minimum.
>
>  As you may have noticed, I am having trouble with my eyesight. Spell
> checker does not catch everything. Apologies for the typos. I am not just
> being sloppy.
>
> AI KR standards are badly needed, and W3C is on the case
>
> We plan to advance this CG to WG, so that we can draft a standard
> for neurosymbolic knowledge representation, NSKR, at some point soon.
>
> what is NSKR you may ask-
>
> I had to carry out a lot of research and argue fairly hard for NS KR
> because obviously some people say that NSI and KR are two different things,
> also because I had not yet fully worked it out.
>
> I have now completed the background research to  propose a standard for
> neurosymbolic integration using model cards, and illustrated the case with
> citable references (in the hope it will be cited, not plagiarized)
>
> I needed to have some well thought out arguments and references before I
> could  invite members of this AI KR CG to think about upgrading to WG and
> start working on a standard
>
> I ll soon be sharing the main points of the plan, and provided enough
> members are ready to receive, well need 5 members to promote the CG to WG
> and then we can get working
>
> Finally, the first report was uploaded today - same old report presented
> at TPAC 2021, which basically summarises the main arguments that motivated
> this CG and point to future developments - just updated it it a bit since
> drafting
>
> https://www.w3.org/community/aikr/wiki/File:AI_KR_FIRST_REPORT_PUBLISHED_VERSION.pdf
> Apologies for taking so long. Future reports may be published more timely
> if someone volunteers to proofread.
>
> Richard Lea was nominated cochair last spring and has agreed to help set
> up a github repo for AI KR, he is working on it
> He has also agreed and to work towards forming a WG so that we can move on
> towards devising a new standard
>
> Lastly, I have never really considered using the Internal mailing list
> internal-aikr@w3.org  until Daniela Cialfi, a new member, posted there
> recently
> *(Monday, 25 July) Thank you Daniela. I guess there are too many trolls on
> the open web.*
> The internal-AIKR mailing list is only accessible to authenticated users,
> rather than being publicly accessible. It could be a good idea to post to
> the internal list only anything that group members are not yet ready to
> share without authentication *referring to plagiarism concerns discussed
> earlier
>
> Continue to have a good summer, to resist  radical connectionism in
> machine learning and more about the proposed standard soon
>
> Paola Di Maio
> Chair W3C AI KR CG
>
>
> Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
>
>
>
>