using external repos, alignment

*@Daniel *Thanks for clarifying that all resources from this CG used in
your repo are referenced and attributed appropriately to the CG and its
respective contributors.  The only thing I would suggest is to make sure
that participants using the notebook are* prominently reminded* that to
make contributions to the CG they should create entries in the CG tools.

@David Booth  thanks for chiming in!
* Everything* *as Quine said
 may be related to KR but not to the current scope of work.

I actually meant that I do not have capacity to
evaluate/follow/maintain/sync external resources *referring to the notebook
but also to the massive architecture that requires considerable cognitive
load to be cognized

By contrast when participants create clearly labelled and in scope entries
in CG tools these are logged and easily audited and as such can be
considered for inclusion in future outcomes or  at a minimum get a mention
in the next report  as 'other contributions *as it has  done in the past

From what I was able to understand of what I have seen of the architecture
it is very broad and beyond my ability to make sense of it ontologically,
Way Out"

This is not intended to detract from its value, or its beauty, on the
contrary, it only reflects the focus on specific aspects of KR we are
trying to figure out and the human limitations of focused attention
*something AI still cannot do
 Contributions *terms, concepts and use cases
in the CG tools are welcome and going to be  considered at gathering time
for inclusion in CG outcomes provided they can be processed in human terms

I do not have physical and mental capacity to parse the amount of unrelated
resources produced by AI  to figure out how they came to be so, nor to
track external resources or to evaluate  the relevant of material which is
not related to the scope of work

I do not know what vocabularies  may have been translated into what,  nor
why - because we do not yet have published any vocabularies *we are still
working on scoping relevant terms extracted from literature in a number of
KR subdomains. And I do not have the attention for this at this time to
figure it out.

Use cases for specific concepts and terms offered to the CG for inclusion
are welcome  *in the wiki please
provided these are original work and relevant here
*ie, the relation to the representation of KR is explained using natural
language

Domain ontology are not in scope of work in this CG  at this time

In the grand scheme of things, since everything is related to everything
else, I am glad that participants can see alignment!


PDM


[image: AI KR VOCABS NOV 2025 upper ont.jpg]









On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 11:33 PM Daniel Campos Ramos <
danielcamposramos.68@gmail.com> wrote:

> I had to write this in a separate communication, just to make sure all
> things are clear, and that we all read the same emails.
>
> *Paola’s note saying K3D has “no relation to this CG” just doesn’t match
> the public record. *
>
> Dave, Milton, Tyson and I have all documented how K3D nodes, Reality
> Enabler, and MVCIC align directly with the scope laid out in the CG’s own
> wiki and mailing-list threads.
>
> Furthermore, I've read Quine’s “On What There Is” before referencing it
> (differently from people that judge before reading); his emphasis on
> resolving “disagreement over cases” is exactly why K3D’s Houses/Galaxies
> enforce explicit domains of discourse.
>
> All vocabulary translations we’ve shared are linked in the list archives
> for traceability.
>
> I'd appreciate future scope decisions being based on the actual
> contributions already logged.
>
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
> Daniel
>