Re: Minsky, Papert and KR Body of Knowledge (winter reader)

Hi Paola, Milton, all,

Following Paola’s “winter reader” suggestion and Milton’s note about 
compiling perspectives, I’ve assembled a small, focused KR/NSI reader 
that sits alongside a concrete implementation example.

All the open‑access items you cited (Minsky, Papert, your Figshare/DOI 
material) are now collected, together with the core K3D specifications, 
in a single NotebookLM workspace:

AI‑KR + K3D Reader (NotebookLM)
https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/80d00386-4b7d-4893-ae84-1c5f90c223de

Inside that workspace I’ve added one synthetic document:

“Report for the W3C AI KR Community Group: A Lineage of Knowledge 
Representation from Minsky to a Concrete Neurosymbolic Architecture”

That report is not marketing; it’s a structured attempt to:

Summarize what Minsky (1974) actually says about the KR problem and frames.
Summarize how Papert (Mindstorms) treats procedures, learning, and 
“debuggable thinking” as KR issues.
Extract the main claims from your neurosymbolic / KRL work (convergence 
NSI↔KRL, truth maintenance, system‑level NSI, standardization goals) 
based only on the open PDFs.
Map those ideas onto a fully specified implementation (K3D) via a 
unified spec document (K3D_Core_Specs_Unified.md in the notebook), covering:
Three‑Brain System (Cranium/Galaxy/House) and SleepTime,
K3D Nodes and spatial KR,
Sovereign NSI (RPN/PTX + RDF/OWL),
Reality Enabler + RPN Domain Opcode Registry as domain‑law encodings.
End with a short list of ways such an architecture could advance the KR 
/ NSI agenda you’ve been outlining (truth preservation, auditability, 
convergence with KRL, possible W3C directions).
For Paola's 2023 chapter “Towards a Web Standard for Neuro-Symbolic 
Integration and Knowledge Representation Using Model Cards” (in Data 
Science with Semantic Technologies), I’ve only included metadata and 
references. The full PDF isn’t openly downloadable; accessing it goes 
through the publisher or a direct request to you. I wanted to respect 
that boundary rather than trying to route around it, while still 
acknowledging its place in the line of work.

If anyone prefers not to use NotebookLM, I can also provide the same 
materials as a plain bundle:

PDFs: Minsky 1974, Papert 1980, Paola’s open Figshare papers,
K3D_Core_Specs_Unified.md: the concatenated K3D spec stack (Three‑Brain, 
Spatial UI, NSI, Reality Enabler, Math Core, SleepTime, PD04, etc.),
The lineage report above as a standalone markdown/PDF.
As a lighter, visual complement to the documents, I’ve also recorded a 
short video, “Gears to Worlds”, which walks through the same idea from a 
KR perspective: how we go from low‑level procedures and explicit laws to 
inhabited knowledge worlds. It’s meant as a visual “microworld” for the 
same concepts, not a replacement for the texts.

I hope this helps make the discussion a bit more concrete: we can now 
look at Minsky, Papert, your NSI/KRL work, and one working neurosymbolic 
architecture side by side and ask, very specifically, where the field 
has continuity and where we’re genuinely adding something new.

Feedback, corrections, or additions to the reader are very welcome.

Best regards,
Daniel