Climbing DIKW pyramid - do we have everything we need? [via Open knowledge-driven service-oriented system architectures and APIs (KiSS) Community Group]

The 'divide and conquer' principle or the 'separation of concerns' design
principle have served well engineers for many centuries. A system viewed as a
collection of interconnected modules (sub-systems) each assigned a dedicated
function is a good way to focus on each issue in its turn, to solve different
problems one after another.

Service-oriented Architecture, a simple triangle, that can be imagined in
general to be composed of 3 vertices: i) service provider, ii) service requester
and iii) register, give a possibility to build complex and scalable systems,
where service requesters with the help from known and (hopefully) trusted
registers can discover and engage with the service providers.



Building loosely-coupled systems, where the links between service requestors and
providers dynamically change as the overall goal or goals the entire system
follows change as well, make it possible for system, in general, to provide a
better service as, for example, to cope with some unforeseen conditions at
system design time. In order words, a system can do things, which its creators
were not foreseeing the system should or could be doing.

Another viewpoint on systems we develop could be through DIKW (Data /
Information / Knowledge / Wisdom) pyramid. Such viewpoint could help us to go
from abstract services that can be dynamically invoked to serve some abstract
changing needs of abstract system to arrive to the point, where we can
formulate the goals and purpose for those actual systems.



At the bottom of the DIKW pyramid, one can imagine data or sensor readings. As
such, those without context provide little value. For example, a temperature of
233 °C may tell us a little. However, as we start to develop a context or
information, linking the temperature with the material exposed to that
temperature, we can start to "see" that at given temperature paper catches the
fire. However, in a different "context" of Aluminium, you will need to rise the
temperature about 3 times more, for the metal to start melt.

Still, we usually try to climb that pyramid to make something useful, which
could be interaction with the environment. So, for example, we may wish that,
for example, a furnace we made to melt metals would maintain the right
temperature to melt given metal. We could make an application that will use
information about the melting temperatures and will keep right levels at
operation time. The operational knowledge can be hardcoded in the application.

However, if we wish to build truly intelligent systems, we may want to push the
limits and make those rules also to change dynamically. Not that we will be able
to change some "constants" for metals, but to at least allow systems to learn
how to treat yet unseen situations and update its experience. For that purpose,
we may need to learn how to represent Wisdom from the above-mentioned pyramid.

Are available knowledge representation standards all that we need to build
systems having "Wisdom" or we miss some languages and standards to grasp
essentials of learning process, to express the emergence of intelligence?



----------

This post sent on Open knowledge-driven service-oriented system architectures
and APIs (KiSS) Community Group



'Climbing DIKW pyramid - do we have everything we need?'

https://www.w3.org/community/kiss/2017/02/19/climbing-dikw-pyramid-do-we-have-everything-we-need/



Learn more about the Open knowledge-driven service-oriented system architectures
and APIs (KiSS) Community Group: 

https://www.w3.org/community/kiss

Received on Sunday, 19 February 2017 19:34:35 UTC