Re: Misconceptions about what knowledge representation truly is

I never said that all natural language should be mathematically
representable only the way it is processed.

Milton Ponson
Rainbow Warriors Core Foundation
CIAMSD Institute-ICT4D Program
+2977459312
PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
Aruba, Dutch Caribbean

On Tue, Nov 18, 2025, 13:49 Daniel Ramos <capitain_jack@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dave,
>
> Thanks for the PKN reference — I agree that “mathematically representable”
> in the narrow sense is too restrictive.
>
> What I’m really after is knowledge that is structured enough (whether in
> axioms, PKN‑style statements, or other KR notations) that a system can
> reason over it with explicit notions of domain and adequacy, rather than
> treating everything as an undifferentiated vector soup. K3D is designed to
> host both: fully axiomatized bits and heuristic plausibility layers like
> PKN, as different fields over the same Houses and Galaxies.
>
> Best,
> Daniel
> On 11/18/25 8:01 AM, Dave Raggett wrote:
>
> I am not convinced that computable knowledge needs to be explicitly
> mathematically representable. For example, the Plausible Knowledge Notation
> [1] uses a variety of statement forms plus a small number of heuristics for
> computing plausibility in lieu of detailed statistical models. This is in
> respect to imperfect knowledge that is uncertain, imprecise, context
> sensitive, incomplete and subject to change. This replaces mathematical
> proof by rational argument.
>
> [1] https://w3c.github.io/cogai/pkn.html
>
> On 14 Nov 2025, at 20:56, Daniel Campos Ramos
> <danielcamposramos.68@gmail.com> <danielcamposramos.68@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Milton, Dave, all,
>
> I resonate strongly with the idea that a central task for this CG is to
> narrow down what we mean by “knowledge that is mathematically representable
> in machine‑readable format,”
>
> Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> <dsr@w3.org>
>
>
>
>