Re: AIML?

Apologies for only having skimmed the thread, but it is something I too
have been wondering about.

As far as I can see, there is still a dichotomy here, dating from the
1960's. Brain people and librarians. Rephrase at will.

Is the most useful material ever, metadata, categorization, can get some
kind of Naive Bayes for Amazon, instance things. Self-driving cars -
brilliant! But still missing a bit a think.

The 'Deep' things find patterns. Alas I think, folks get too focused [sic]
on vision.

To do something useful with these, the neural needs to get the graph. I've
not seen anything close. The recurrent things, yes, nearly got timeline.
Spacial, for sure. Getting the knowledge encapsulated in a web (or human)
set of links, not seen.

Bottom-line problems here I think are that people either want to get a
doctorate that makes sense or an app that makes money.

Cliche, but 'outside of the box'. Different ways of thinking that might
work well on silicon, things that can work well, we have little
comprehension.

I know I am starting to sound like like a nutjob, but isn't it at least
plausible...wait, I was going to say at least plausible that computers
could do things we couldn't. Done and dusted. Better at sums. But a
different approach to things? We can see into the infrared thanks to techno
developments. Might it not be possible for computers to think in ways that
defy us?

Yes, I accept mathematics as the fundamental, but different mathematics?
Plausible?

I had a large glass of wine in the middle of that.

love,
Danny.















On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 at 02:28, ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program <
metadataportals@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Yes, it is. What I am referring to is categorical parsing for machine
> learning.
>
> Two things here:
>
> Categorial grammars for natural language processing and semantic parsers
>
> And Categorical parsers for machine learning.
>
> The first deals with the actual text.
>
> The second with coded reference tags (tuples) that define at a higher
> level than markup the options available for markup, based on contextual
> information.
>
> E.g in the Internet of Data, Devices, DNA (living beings) or Digital
> Agents, distinct frameworks for security, (semantic) process interfaces,
> security protocols etc apply.
>
> The categorical parser processes the information and then selects the
> appropriate category for further action.
>
>
> The categorical parser uses a cause and effect logical framework .
>
> See Judea Pearl's criticism on why AI does not deliver in ML today, To
> build truly intelligent machines teach them cause and effect in Quanta
> Magazine.
>
>
>
> 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 Wednesday, June 27, 2018, 10:49:39 AM AST, carl mattocks <
> carlmattocks@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> John; Paola; Milton et al:
>
> Absolutely in agreement with you. Have (more than) dabbled in this area
> for decades. For a client project I created a simple chatbot flow method
> which could leverage AI machine learning (assumes it will eventually be
> implemented). Recently proposed it for an IOT project.. but did not get it
> funded. Quite happy to do this as open-source effort.
>
> Carl
>
> It was a pleasure to clarify
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Martynas and John
>
> John, it may have been a question of timing your proposal
> some of our best ideas come too early the world is not yet ready
> I have no doubts we can find funding if we make the case well enough
> Since you seem to have a good grasp an experience
> we ll count on you :-)
>
> P
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 7:35 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.co m
> <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.co m <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>*
>
>
>
>
> --
> *A bit about me <https://about.me/paoladimaio>*
>
>
>

-- 
----

http://hyperdata.it <http://hyperdata.it/danja>