Re: AIML?

This might be of interest to you:
https://developer.amazon.com/blogs/alexa/post/29f92b4d-1369-4d22-8494-7c4cc57650a3/amazon-scientists-to-present-more-sophisticated-semantic-representation-language-for-alexa

Alexa Meaning Representation Language is using RDF ontologies. That is
mentioned in the PDF article - link in the bottom of the post.

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 4:05 PM, John Flynn <jflynn12@verizon.net> wrote:

> I have been interested in the integration of AIML and Semantic Web
> technology for over a decade. I have submitted several proposals (teaming
> with AIML developers) to US government agencies to further this research,
> but discouragingly have received no awards. Semantic Web technology, and
> specifically OWL, offers great promise in allowing a revolutionary
> expansion of chat bot capabilities. Rather that storing basically canned
> responses to queries, an OWL based knowledge base would allow retrieval of
> class and property data (entities) relevant to the user's query. OWL
> knowledge bases are normally constructed based on a domain of interest. The
> more extensive the amount of detail in the knowledge base dictates an
> increasingly narrower domain of interest just because of the volume of
> information. This is different from many chat bots that attempt to cover
> any area that a user might wish to discuss. An AIML-OWL chat bot would
> need (at least initially to limit the domain of discussion) There are
> various approaches to OWL knowledge base development but I strongly favor
> the use of an upper ontology that address all the high-level ontology
> issues and information that will be used across multiple domains of
> interest, such a time, space, geography, etc. So, the basic idea is that
> extensions to AIML natural language parsing capabilities would extract key
> class or property domain terms from the user input and the system would
> then search the OWL knowledge base for these concepts. If there were a
> "hit" then the smart chat bot would then provide the opportunity to
> increase its capabilities to greatly expand the discussion base because the
> knowledge base may have a wealth of information related to the concepts in
> the user's dialog. Additionally, one of the really strong features of an
> OWL knowledge base is that it provides the capability to conduct reasoning
> whereby information may be generated via reasoning that is not explicitly
> present in the knowledge base.
>
>
>
> To be honest one of the main reasons I focused on AIML as the front end of
> such a system is that when this all started I was particularly interested
> in chat bots (and I still am) and AIML provided a reasonable natural
> language front end. There have been significant advancements in the area of
> natural language front ends since those days and any prudent proposal would
> now need to examine the viability of using something other than AIML.
>
>
>
> John Flynn
>
> http://semanticsimulations.com
>
>
>
> *From:* paoladimaio10@gmail.com [mailto:paoladimaio10@gmail.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Paola Di Maio
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 27, 2018 4:22 AM
> *To:* ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program
> *Cc:* paoladimaio10@googlemail.com; brandon whitehead; Eric
> Prud'hommeaux; semantic-web at W3C
> *Subject:* Re: AIML?
>
>
>
> Thank you for sharing Milton
>
>
>
> nice pointer to this interesting project  but, isnt markup languages still
>
> required/useful for representation even in knowledge graphs?
>
>
>
> and if not, isnt markup language the most basic way to enable intelligent
> knowledge exchange on the web
>
> so that it can be useful even without a knowledge graph?
>
>
>
> pdm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 9:22 AM, ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program <
> metadataportals@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Modeling AI on the web in my humble opinion is no longer a question of
> simple markup languages, the Internet of Things or more succinctly Internet
> of Data, Devices, DNA and Digital Agents (IOD4) increasingly uses both AI
> and virtual reality technologies.
>
>
>
> In such a setting using ontologies, parsers and any automated process that
> codes or decodes and interfaces, either in NL setting or otherwise must use
> of category theory to create the required abstraction for knowledge graphs.
>
>
>
> Take a look at the Blue Brain Nexus for lateral thinking:
>
>
>
> BlueBrain/nexus <https://github.com/BlueBrain/nexus>
>
>
>
> BlueBrain/nexus
>
> nexus - Blue Brain Nexus - A knowledge graph for data-driven science
>
>
>
> Milton Ponson
> GSM: +297 747 8280
> PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
> Aruba, Dutch Caribbean
> *Project Paradigm*: Bringing the ICT tools for sustainable development to
> all stakeholders worldwide through collaborative research on applied
> mathematics, advanced modeling, software and standards development
>
>
>
> On Saturday, May 12, 2018 10:29 AM, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot
>
>
>
> looks useful- and a good start
>
>
>
> so MLschema is in practice a... MLML.?
>
> a draft -
>
>
>
> is it suggested that all knowledge schemas to support
>
> automated reasoning and AI should/could adopt its core elements as its base
>
> (in which I could think if/how this can help my task maybeevaluate it
> against our use cases)
>
>
>
> I checked out OpenML and found no credits, who did it, when etc
>
> also it is not clear if its openmarkuplanguage or openmedialibrary
>
> since both seem associated with the same group (Kronos? are they
> associated with OKF ?)
>
>  both come up in searches
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:58 PM, brandon whitehead <
> brandonnodnarb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Paola,
> The machine learning community group [1] published a draft core schema
> about a year ago that, at the very least, may be of  interest (link on
> main page).
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/community/ ml-schema/
> <https://www.w3.org/community/ml-schema/>
>
> Cheers,
> /Brandon
>
> On 12/05/18 11:51, Paola Di Maio wrote:
> > Eric
> > Yes, of course getting the key stakeholders involved-
> >
> >  since you are familiar with the member base
> > i ll be happy to pitch directly members who are working on AI
> > if you could suggest a way to shortlist them/approach them
> >
> > P
> >
> > On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 3:36 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org
> > <mailto:eric@w3.org>> wrote:
> >
> >     * Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com
> >     <mailto:paola.dimaio@gmail.com >> [2018-05-12 15:15+0530]
>
> >     > Thank you Eric
> >     >
> >     > at this stage, I was thinking of some web based knowledge
> representation
> >     > mechanism or ML for something that I am working on related to AI
> >     > (I have learned my lessons- glad to share details of this early
> concept
> >     > offlist to those who may express interest until it's solid )
> >     >
> >     > I did a search, and found AIML which seems the closest to what I
> require
> >     > however could not find a formal specification to study it further,
> and
> >     > wondered about any interest to W3C.
> >     >
> >     > I am pretty sure the web needs what I am thinking of, to what
> extent its
> >     > feasible or we can find folks to do it and adopt it, I dunno
> >
> >     To motivate standardization, you have to dig up use cases that not
> >     only need some technology, but motivate distinct entities using a
> >     common form or interface to that technology. So a win would be
> >     e.g. when folks can combine commodity tools to generate such data
> >     with commodity tools which make use of it.
> >
> >
> >     > >  There's nothing saying you
> >     > > can't have a hybrid system which e.g. uses SemWeb for entity
> >     > > recognition (à la NCBO annotator) or records ML assertions in
> >     RDF for
> >     > > further rule execution. That requires people to have expertise
> and
> >     > > commitment in both camps and so far, those folks haven't banded
> >     > > together with a set of shared use cases and goals.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Am thinking of something fluid,  ML should be sufficient for my
> >     requirement
> >     > at this stage- also confess that i favour simplicity over
> >     sophistication
> >     >
> >     > but could not find anything that does what I require so thinking
> maybe
> >     > something can be done-
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > > If you can muster
> >     > > the troops (an army of five, to be exact), you can easily create
> >     a W3C
> >     > > Community Group (see [CREATE A COMMUNITY GROUP] at
> >     > > <https://www.w3.org/community/ groups/
> <https://www.w3.org/community/groups/>
>
> >     <https://www.w3.org/community/ groups/
> <https://www.w3.org/community/groups/>>>).
>
>
> >     > >
> >     >
> >     > yep, done it before. I chaired a nice group that did good work for
> >     one year
> >     > then suddenly fell silent and I am still traumatized  by the
> >     experience. :-)
> >     > (joke - it was valuable!)
> >     >
> >     >  anyone interested in AI ML of sorts who is reliable and
> >     competent  (not
> >     > afraid of failure?) welcome to brainstorm offlist to discuss early
> >     stage
> >     > concept for this work
> >     >
> >     > , I need specifically folks who can do implementation side of
> things
> >     > (writing a parsers for validation, and implement the test cases
> >     etc) and
> >     > who are good at getting research funding - I am okay with the
> >     concept and
> >     > system design part, and that's about it
> >     >
> >     > >
> >     > > >
> >     > >
> >     > > The tutorial seemed to be about a template language for natural
> >     > > language interfaces while the overview seemed to go more into the
> >     > > actual processing logic. Do you know if AIML captures AI logic
> and
> >     > > what use cases would motivate favoring such a standard for
> Semantic
> >     > > Web work?
> >     > >
> >     >
> >     > No, guess not but not sure. AIML seems very very thin at the
> moment,
> >     > although there is a free working prototype online which seems to
> >     be using it
>
> >     > https://home.pandorabots.com/ en/
> <https://home.pandorabots.com/en/> <https://home.pandorabots.com/ en/
> <https://home.pandorabots.com/en/>>
> >     >
> >     > I think there's work to be done-
> >     >
> >     > >
> >     > >
> >     > > --
> >     > > -ericP
> >     > >
> >     > > office: +1.617.599.3509
> >     > > mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59
> >     > >
> >     > > (eric@w3.org <mailto:eric@w3.org>)
> >     > > Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose
> >     other than
> >     > > email address distribution.
> >     > >
> >     > > There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever
> layout
> >     > > which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay
> paper.
> >     > >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > --
> >     > *A bit about me <https://about.me/paoladimaio> *
> >
> >     --
> >     -ericP
> >
> >     office: +1.617.599.3509
> >     mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59
> >
> >     (eric@w3.org <mailto:eric@w3.org>)
>
> >     Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other
> than
> >     email address distribution.
> >
> >     There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
> >     which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *A bit about me <https://about.me/paoladimaio> *
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *A bit about me <https://about.me/paoladimaio>*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *A bit about me <https://about.me/paoladimaio>*
>
>