Re: definitions, problem spaces, methods

The statement “We can only pursue artificial intelligence via symbolic means” is false, since artificial neural networks eschew symbols, and have been at the forefront of recent advances in AI.  I therefore prefer the Wikipedia definition of KR which is less restrictive:

“Knowledge representation and reasoning (KRR, KR&R, KR) is the field of artificial intelligence (AI) dedicated to representing information about the world in a form that a computer system can use to solve complex tasks”

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_representation_and_reasoning

> On 7 Nov 2022, at 03:03, 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
> 319.621.5225
> http://mkbergman.com <http://mkbergman.com/>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman
> __________________________________________ 

Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>