Re: definitions, problem spaces, methods

Thank you Mike

because you have been so silent
I had forgotten that you too had written a KR bible!
which was referenced and partly discussed here when this list when it
started
-----------
but that sentence that I wrote in the post,


*KR can exist without artificial intelligence, but AI requires knowledge
representation. *
It is not just your conclusion Mike, it is a FACT

- would have quoted your book of course, so glad you got that black on white
for future reference
-----------
or it could be that I assimilated that thought into my own thinking and
forgot I read it in your book?
-------------


On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 11:04 AM Mike Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> It is always useful to have a shared understanding within a community for
> what defines its interests and why they have shared interests as a
> community. I applaud putting these questions out there. Like all W3C
> community groups, we have both committed students and occasional grazers.
> One can generally gauge usefulness of a given topic in a given group by the
> range of respondents to a given topic. Persistence seems to be more a
> function of specific interlocuters not letting go rather than usefulness.
>
> After researching what became a book to consider the matter, I came to the
> opinion that AI is a subset of KR [1]. The conclusion of that investigation
> was:
>
> "However, when considered, mainly using prescission, it becomes clear that
> KR
> can exist without artificial intelligence, but AI requires knowledge
> representation.
> We can only pursue artificial intelligence via symbolic means, and KR is
> the transla -
> tion of information into a symbolic form to instruct a computer. Even if
> the com-
> puter learns on its own, we represent that information in symbolic KR
> form. This
> changed premise for the role of KR now enables us to think, perhaps, in
> broader
> terms, such as including the ideas of instinct and kinesthetics in the
> concept. This
> kind of re-consideration alters the speculative grammar we have for both
> KR and AI,
> helpful as we move the fields forward." (p 357)
>
> That also caused me to pen a general commentary on one aspect of the KR
> challenge, how to consider classes (types) versus individuals (tokens) [2].
> I would also argue these are now practically informed topics, among many,
> that augment or question older bibles like Brachman and Levesque.
>
> Best, Mike
> [1] https://www.mkbergman.com/pubs/akrp/chapter-17.pdf
> [2]
> https://www.mkbergman.com/2286/knowledge-representation-is-a-tricky-business/
>
> --
> __________________________________________
>
> Michael K. Bergman
> 319.621.5225http://mkbergman.comhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman
> __________________________________________
>
>