Re: KR for Cogai/gentle reminder

Hello,

In that case, the group should have been called KR CG not AI KR CG.

Thanks,

Adeel

On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 at 22:19, Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com> wrote:

> Carl, and all
> we can have many points of view also within the same community
>
> Depend on what people study, what and how much they read, and what life
> and work experiences they have, contributes to forming different opinions
>
> This AI KR CG was started to advance and fill the gaps in the state of the
> art, identify and address issues at hand
> and as an invitation to share  research, experiments or thoughts
> on the subject
> So we wait to hear what everyone is up to, how do people and machines
> reason
> and carry out inferences without KR?
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 6:07 AM carl mattocks <carlmattocks@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Paola
>> Indeed .. having two or more W3C communities enables more than two or
>> more points of view
>>
>> Carl
>> It was a pleasure to clarify
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 5:25 PM Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Gabriel and all
>>> Brachman - and others - wrote the Bible of KR
>>> but not many have studied it
>>>
>>> On My shelf, the bible of KR and the bibles of AI stand side by side
>>> and the former is on top, but anyone decides how to organize their stack
>>> according to their priorities
>>>
>>> We become researchers because we do not take things at face value
>>> and because we like to add new chapters to old bibles
>>>
>>> To consider KR as a subset of AI may be useful in some context, to some
>>> extent
>>> but it is the root of many shortcomings that are causing widespread
>>> concern.
>>> People have started to realize that AI without KR is kind of nonsense
>>> (it is not AI)
>>> Brachman wrote explictity that AI cannot be separated from KR
>>> In systems and software engineering, we design the KR
>>> BEFORE the AI is implemented, because AI is nothing more than execution
>>> of KR
>>>
>>> In the same way that a software program (the logical representation of
>>> what the software does and how it does it) can be written on paper, or even
>>> theorized and then implemented using different languages and programming
>>> structures - that is the same function can be reproduced by manipulating
>>> and rendering the logical design in a variety of ways
>>> so AI can be generated using different algorithms.
>>> KR is ultimately the language in which the AI algorithm is written
>>> It needs to be written up BEFORE it can be executed to make sure it runs
>>> as intended
>>>
>>> Experimentally though, for example in genetic algorithms, a program can
>>> run without being written. These are interesting to be studied, and surely
>>> offer advantages, but
>>> have shortcomings. We cannot use a genetic algorithm to support policies
>>> (the set of organisational, behavioural rules that algorithms must
>>> adhere to)
>>> Ethics, reliability etc of AI are all implemented via policies.
>>>
>>>  It has been noted that KR is not practiced nor taught correctly
>>> especially in teaching (Morgernstern), however thirty years after the
>>> problem was lucidly identified and posited to the AI community, nothing has
>>> been done to fill this gap.
>>>
>>> AI  can be very powerful.  So is knowledge
>>>
>>> When people have knowledge, and the mechanisms to leverage knowledge
>>> to produce intelligence, they cannot be as easily manipulated
>>>
>>> Ultimately, the entire education system, media  machinery, scientific
>>> establishment and the technology that serves to fuel conflict rather than
>>> resolve it,
>>> are all tied in into correct and adequate Knowledge representation
>>>
>>> Technology (AI) is a subset of Mind (cogntion, knowledge, reasoning)
>>> Academic institutions can control what it is said about technology and
>>> mind
>>> but not free thinking itself, that is the only thing we have left
>>>
>>>  @carl mattocks <carlmattocks@gmail.com>   nobody has to agree with a
>>> single point of view
>>>  I started this AI KR CG to share state of the art thinking and research
>>> and others are welcome to do the same,  I share many of the hundreds of
>>> papers I have to read to be able to make novel contribution and advance the
>>> state of the art
>>> I appreciate that the industry is trying to control it
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 11:14 PM Gabriel Lopes <
>>> gabriellopes9102@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello everyone!
>>>>
>>>> It is really amazing the opportunity to have discussions like these,
>>>> where fundamental concepts world-wide used, even across generations of
>>>> thinkers and specialist practitioners on related-fields, are dissected and
>>>> analysed.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you, @Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com> , for bringing
>>>> your disruptive point of view, principally when the *Bible *of AI
>>>> tells explicitly the opposite.
>>>> And, +1 for the perception of *giftness* about the possibility of
>>>> having books, such as Norvig, available online.
>>>>
>>>> If I got your point, *knowledge *becomes a super-entity of
>>>> materialized and conceptual entities, such as circuits and deductions,
>>>> while *representation* comes as the manifested form passible of human
>>>> perceiving, discussion, and understanding, such as Diagrams, Words, and OWL
>>>> classes.
>>>>
>>>> More or less somehow?
>>>>
>>>> So, being *AI* an object of human interpretability of *artificial *and
>>>> *intelligence* concepts - what isn't 'natural' (was already there) and
>>>> capacity of inferring, deducting, perceiving, and realizing, just to cite a
>>>> few, respectively -, *KR*, as a super-entity of *concept* itself,
>>>> intuitively becomes a superset of Artificial Intelligence, as the
>>>> representation of knowledge would surpass our notions of what is artificial
>>>> and intelligence.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Although, I would also partially agree with Adeel.
>>>>
>>>> I had used Norvig in AI classes about KR some years ago, and, even if
>>>> he have used the new hype term, also due to cognition and psychology
>>>> revolution in the 70s and 80s and boosted by Intellicorp at the time, the
>>>> discussion about KR in the book is mostly related to logical relationships
>>>> among concepts, terms, and knowledge.
>>>>
>>>> But, as Paola stated, things are changing all the time, and, with the
>>>> virtual revolution in recent years, maybe our notion of Knowledge,
>>>> representation, natural, artifficial, and intelligence itself, will maybe
>>>> suffer some modifications...
>>>>
>>>> Well, in any case, I`m hoping to be here for the next few years to see
>>>> how this super interesting discussion will evolve ;-)!!
>>>>
>>>> best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Em dom., 30 de out. de 2022 às 17:50, ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program <
>>>> metadataportals@yahoo.com> escreveu:
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you Adeel for pointing out that KR is a subset of AI. And not
>>>>> only computer scientists would agree but basically most computational
>>>>> linguists, mathematicians and philosophers too.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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, October 29, 2022 at 09:19:39 PM AST, Paola Di Maio <
>>>>> paoladimaio10@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Adeel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for giving more info about your background
>>>>> I apologise, since many posts were exploratory about KR
>>>>> It is amazing how someone can be a graduate of CS and still learning
>>>>> about KR
>>>>> That CS curricula have considered KR as a separate topic is regrettable
>>>>>
>>>>> It is also well documented that KR is only taught in a limited way in
>>>>> traditional curricula
>>>>> A topic I already discussed and published about
>>>>>
>>>>> Brachman wrote  that AI and KR cannot be separated, must have been
>>>>> fifty years ago?
>>>>>  but AI field has evolved in a very funny way - resulting in current
>>>>> problems
>>>>> (also written and talked  about that extensively)
>>>>>
>>>>> KR however is a bigger topic beyond AI. The diagram shred yesterday
>>>>> makes it so clear (this is why is one of my favourite
>>>>>
>>>>>  I have already extensively posted about, and written on
>>>>> is that because AI is becoming now relevant to all other fields of
>>>>> practice (see the diagrams posted yesterday) KR needs to be designed
>>>>> accordingly
>>>>>  Finally, despite much talk of general intelligence of recent years
>>>>> the field of AI has developed in rather narrow ways,
>>>>>
>>>>> The work I do, and share here in snippets, is precisely taking into
>>>>> account he
>>>>> dynamic context where everything is going
>>>>>
>>>>> I apologize if I cannot reply to every posts,  especially where
>>>>> the questions and issues brought up have been extensively addressed
>>>>> in several years of posts publications and talks which I have done my
>>>>> best to share here
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 8:59 AM Adeel <aahmad1811@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I come from CS background. I read those books 20 years ago. I am
>>>>> not a newbie! LOL
>>>>> And, AI is a sub-field of CS, while KRR is often considered a
>>>>> sub-field of AI.
>>>>> Literally, every CS department treats it as a separate research area
>>>>> within AI.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Adeel
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2022 at 01:54, Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Adeel,  it is really good that you are reading the books
>>>>> Norvig book is a great resource and the free copy online a gift to
>>>>> humanity
>>>>> But we must keep in mind that everything is relative
>>>>> Norvig point of view  on KR is relative to his field of practice
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on the diagram shared yesterday AI is one of the fields of
>>>>> application
>>>>> for KR,
>>>>>
>>>>> From a systems viewpoint, AI is a type of system
>>>>> If you place AI at the top of your conceptual hierarchy, everything
>>>>> will be a subset of it
>>>>> (including creativity, intelligence, knowledge etc)
>>>>> I think clarifying this top level category is fundamental. (was it you
>>>>> who brought up the THING in owl or someone else)
>>>>>
>>>>> This is why, we need to define our questions during dialogue.
>>>>> In my ontology, THING is knowledge
>>>>>
>>>>> I consider AI as a subset of KR because my top level category is
>>>>> general knowledge/cogniti. AI is a subset (a type of system based on )
>>>>> natural intelligence
>>>>> It is regrettable that intelligent processes are  considered a subset
>>>>> of AI in CS literature
>>>>>
>>>>> PDM
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 8:40 AM Adeel <aahmad1811@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that is not true. KR is a subset of AI.
>>>>>
>>>>> See Norvig book which is used in many foundational AI courses which
>>>>> teaches KR is a subset of AI.
>>>>>
>>>>> Norvig <https://zoo.cs.yale.edu/classes/cs470/materials/aima2010.pdf>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Adeel
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2022 at 01:33, Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Milton
>>>>> Please note that AI is a subset of KR  not viceversa
>>>>> Please also be reminded that I have often posted topics from other WC3
>>>>> lists
>>>>> where I spottend an overlap with KR (its all the archive)
>>>>> That said, if you would like to start by auditing all other CGs and
>>>>> WGs for KR
>>>>> relevant issues/problems that we could at least take into account
>>>>> here, that would be
>>>>> most welcome and most useful.
>>>>> If you do knowledge audit  for KR topic/open questions across W3C
>>>>> communities I will personally award you with a prize and even a plaque that
>>>>> you can hang on your wall
>>>>> Keeping in mind that things change all the time, you could limit by
>>>>> time frame
>>>>> (say in the last ten years or less?)
>>>>> PDM
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 2:57 AM ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program <
>>>>> metadataportals@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to point out that KR is one of the central themes for the
>>>>> entire field commonly known as artificial intelligence.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is a Knowledge Representation?
>>>>> A perspective from the MIT AI Lab, MIT AI Lab and Symbolics, Inc. and
>>>>> MIT Lab for Computer Science
>>>>> http://groups.csail.mit.edu/medg/people/psz/ftp/k-rep.html
>>>>>
>>>>> So what we are doing in the AIKR W3 CG is basically a SUBSET of every
>>>>> other AI CG in the W3 Community Groups
>>>>>
>>>>> Now a basic tenet of scientific dialogue is the possibility to
>>>>> disagree upon terminology, scope and findings, results and even theories.
>>>>>
>>>>> The biggest problem in AI today is that we cannot even agree upon what
>>>>> actually is AI, what it should be and what are its main characteristics,
>>>>> and unfortunately this also applies to knowledge representation.
>>>>>
>>>>> But because every field of scientific endeavor and engineering
>>>>> nowadays utilizes AI, and every field has its own knowledge that needs
>>>>> formal representation AIKR is at the core of all of this.
>>>>>
>>>>> I sense that the CogAI focuses of the cognitive processes involved in
>>>>> the creation of knowledge and how to best capture this in formal
>>>>> representation, based upon their description of objectives.
>>>>>
>>>>> So Paola is PARTIALLY right in trying to separate the work being done.
>>>>>
>>>>> But let's not waste the possible synergies to be gained. We could
>>>>> TOGETHER produce deliverables (reports, articles) and the central role of
>>>>> KR in AI, and how this relates to cognitive processes that are also central
>>>>> to all AI.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's define this common ground and define the possible common
>>>>> objectives and potential deliverables. Because to quote the European Union,
>>>>> objectives for open, inclusive, explainable and ethical AI also presuppose
>>>>> open , inclusive, explainable and ethical knowledge and consequently
>>>>> cognitive processes and underlying architectures for such.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have tasked myself with providing an overview of what is AI, using a
>>>>> timeline, with a concise summary of academic fields involved and how the EU
>>>>> objectives can be achieved.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone willing to collaborate is welcome to contact me.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a vested personal interest to utilize AI for the common good
>>>>> defined in sustainable development guidelines of the UN as well, because AI
>>>>> could be instrumental in tackling seemingly insurmountable problems like
>>>>> climate change, and other global issues plaguing our modern world.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's agree to be able to disagree, but not let it stand in our way to
>>>>> collaborate.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 Friday, October 28, 2022 at 11:28:23 PM AST, Adeel <
>>>>> aahmad1811@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> extract from the book:
>>>>>
>>>>> "
>>>>>
>>>>> Show that minimizing abnormality will work if we add the
>>>>>
>>>>> assertion
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *All Québecois are abnormal Canadians,*
>>>>>
>>>>> but will not work if we only add
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Québecois are typically abnormal Canadians.*
>>>>>
>>>>> "
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's harsh... LOL
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2022 at 03:32, Adeel <aahmad1811@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps, Paola is referring to the theory in this book -> Brachman
>>>>> and Levesque
>>>>> <https://www.cin.ufpe.br/~mtcfa/files/in1122/Knowledge%20Representation%20and%20Reasoning.pdf>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Adeel
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2022 at 03:06, Timothy Holborn <
>>>>> timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Noted.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_representation_and_reasoning
>>>>>
>>>>> In terms of knowledge representation, for humanity, my thoughts have
>>>>> been that it's about the ability for people to represent the evidence of a
>>>>> circumstance in a court of law.  If solutions fail to support the ability
>>>>> to be used in these circumstances, to successfully represent knowledge -
>>>>> which can be relied upon in a court of law; a circumstance that should
>>>>> never be wanted, but desirable to support peace.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then, I guess, I'd be confused about the purposeful definion; or the
>>>>> useful purpose of any such tools being produced & it's relationship, by
>>>>> design, to concepts like natural justice.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_justice
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me know if I am actually "off topic" per the intended design
>>>>> outcomes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Timothy Holborn.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2022, 11:55 am Paola Di Maio, <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just as a reminder, this list is about sharing knowledge, research and
>>>>> practice in AI KR, The intersection with KR and CogAI may also be relevant
>>>>> here (and of interest to me)
>>>>>
>>>>> If people want to discuss CogAI not in relation to KR, please use the
>>>>> CogAI CG list?
>>>>> What I mean is that: if KR is not of interest/relevance to a post,
>>>>> then why post here?
>>>>>
>>>>> What is KR, its relevance and limitations is a vast topic, written
>>>>> about in many scholarly books, but also these books are not adequately
>>>>> covering the topic, In that sense, the topic of KR itself, without further
>>>>> qualification, is too vast to be discussed without narrowing it down to a
>>>>> specific problem/question
>>>>> KR in relation to CogAI has been the subject of study for many of us
>>>>> for many years, and it is difficult to discuss/comprehend/relate to for
>>>>> those who do not share the background. I do not think this list can fill
>>>>> the huge gap left by academia, however there are great books freely
>>>>> available online that give some introduction .
>>>>> When it comes to the application of KR to new prototypes, we need to
>>>>> understand what these prototypes are doing, why and how. Unfortunately NN
>>>>> fall short of general intelligence and intellegibility for humans.
>>>>>
>>>>> Adeel, thank you for sharing the paper 40 years of Cognitive
>>>>> Architectures
>>>>> I am not sure you were on the list back then, but I distributed the
>>>>> resource as a working reference for this list and anyone interested in
>>>>> February 2021, and have used the resource as the basis for my research on
>>>>> the intersection AI KR/CogAI since
>>>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aikr/2021Feb/0017.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave: the topics KR, AI, CogAI and consciousness, replicability,
>>>>> reliability, and all the issues brought up in the many posts in this thread
>>>>> and other thread are too vast
>>>>> to be discussed meaningfully in a single thread
>>>>>
>>>>> May I encourage the breaking down of topics/issues making sure the
>>>>> perspective and focus of KR (including its limitations) are not lost
>>>>> in the long threads
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you
>>>>> (Chair hat on)
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 6:23 PM Adeel <aahmad1811@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> To start with might be useful to explore 'society of mind
>>>>> <http://aurellem.org/society-of-mind/index.html>' and 'soar' as point
>>>>> of extension.
>>>>>
>>>>> 40 years of cognitive architecture
>>>>> <https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10462-018-9646-y.pdf>
>>>>>
>>>>> Recently, Project Debater
>>>>> <https://research.ibm.com/interactive/project-debater/> also came
>>>>> into the scene. Although, not quite as rigorous in Cog or KR.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Adeel
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 28 Oct 2022 at 02:05, Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you all for contributing to the discussion
>>>>>
>>>>> the topic is too vast - Dave I am not worried if we aree or not agree,
>>>>> the universe is big enough
>>>>>
>>>>> To start with I am concerned whether we are talking about the same
>>>>> thing altogether. The expression human level intelligence is often used to
>>>>> describe tneural networks, but that is quite ridiculous comparison. If the
>>>>> neural network is supposed to mimic human level intelligence, then we
>>>>> should be able to ask; how many fingers do humans have?
>>>>> But this machine is not designed to answer questions, nor to have this
>>>>> level of knowledge about the human anatomy. A neural network is not AI in
>>>>> that sense
>>>>> it fetches some images and mixes them without any understanding of
>>>>> what they are
>>>>> and the process of what images it has used, why and what rationale was
>>>>> followed for the mixing is not even described, its probabilistic. go figure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hay, I am not trying to diminish the greatness of the creative neural
>>>>> network, it is great work and it is great fun. But a) it si not an artist.
>>>>> it does not create something from scratch b) it is not intelligent really,
>>>>> honestly,. try to have a conversation with a nn
>>>>>
>>>>> This is what KR does: it helps us to understand what things are and
>>>>> how they work
>>>>> It also helps us to understand if something is passed for what it is
>>>>> not *(evaluation)
>>>>> This is is why even neural network require KR, because without it, we
>>>>> don know what it is supposed
>>>>> to do, why and how and whether it does what it is supposed to do
>>>>>
>>>>> they still have a role to play in some computation
>>>>>
>>>>> * DR Knowledge representation in neural networks is not transparent, *
>>>>> *PDM I d say that either is lacking or is completely random*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> DR Neural networks definitely capture knowledge as is evidenced by
>>>>> their capabilities, so I would disagree with you there.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> PDM  capturing knowledge is not knowledge representation, in AI,
>>>>> capturing knowledge is only one step, the categorization of knowledge
>>>>> is necessary to the reasoning
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *We are used to assessing human knowledge via examinations, and I
>>>>> don’t see why we can’t adapt this to assessing artificial minds *
>>>>> because assessments is very expensive, with varying degrees of
>>>>> effectiveness, require skills and a process -  may not be feasible when AI
>>>>> is embedded to test it/evaluate it
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We will develop the assessment framework as we evolve and depend upon
>>>>> AI systems. For instance, we would want to test a vision system to see if
>>>>> it can robustly perceive its target environment in a wide variety of
>>>>> conditions. We aren’t there yet for the vision systems in self-driving cars!
>>>>>
>>>>> Where I think we agree is that a level of transparency of reasoning is
>>>>> needed for systems that make decisions that we want to rely on.  Cognitive
>>>>> agents should be able to explain themselves in ways that make sense to
>>>>> their users, for instance, a self-driving car braked suddenly when it
>>>>> perceived a child to run out from behind a parked car.  We are less
>>>>> interested in the pixel processing involved, and more interested in whether
>>>>> the perception is robust, i.e. the car can reliably distinguish a real
>>>>> child from a piece of newspaper blowing across the road where the newspaper
>>>>> is showing a picture of a child.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be a huge mistake to deploy AI when the assessment framework
>>>>> isn’t sufficiently mature.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Gabriel Lopes
>>>> *Interoperability as Jam's sessions!*
>>>> *Each system emanating the music that crosses itself, instrumentalizing
>>>> scores and ranges...*
>>>> *... of Resonance, vibrations, information, data, symbols, ..., Notes.*
>>>>
>>>> *How interoperable are we with the Music the World continuously offers
>>>> to our senses?*
>>>> *Maybe it depends on our foundations...?*
>>>>
>>>