- From: Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 08:03:00 +0800
- To: Agnieszka Ławrynowicz <agnieszka.lawrynowicz@cs.put.poznan.pl>
- Cc: Diogo FC Patrao <djogopatrao@gmail.com>, ontolog-forum <ontolog-forum@googlegroups.com>, SW-forum <semantic-web@w3.org>, W3C AIKR CG <public-aikr@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAMXe=SqJEZbMw4nW9OTLzbrySJU5JQPixn4HXNXzft6=7zSjBA@mail.gmail.com>
Thank you all who replied (from different lists) and apologies for cross posting, also apologise for sending links to articles behind the paywall I did not find any reference to subsymbolic KR in that article, if that is so, such definition for NN should be specified as being subsymbolic . There's a huge difference. Achieszka - and others - this must be the part of the semantic web that I never understood, and maybe why the sw that some of us are hoping for, has not yet happened (I got as far as microtheories) Now I understand also the thinking behind the bits about the logic disjunction which chill my bones. Semantics, as in..... ''relating to meaning in language or logic'' cannot be supported by sub symbolic KR, can it? What are the languages of SSKR? I cannot envisage 'discourse or argumentation' being possible (unless its ahead and I cant see it) The point is that SSKR does not support Logic, which is the foundation of intelligent function in human and systems You can argue that computational semantics can be more granular and express meaning aggregating smaller units, say, lexemes or parts of speech but... at system level, there can be no function, nor process, nor logical integrity without the coherent integration of the parts (the intelligence bit) A lump of neurons dont make a brain!!!! This article says: The subsymbolic representation of the world often corresponds to a pattern that mirrors the world as described by the biological sense organs. https://academic.oup.com/logcom/article-abstract/23/3/627/1029379?redirectedFrom=fulltext An individual neuron, is not capable of cognitive function beyond the synapsis (from what we know). I cannot have ANY kind of intelligent interaction with a single neuron - its like trying to have a conversation with an amoeba or with a single brain cell, or to make eye contact with a cell in the retina Not likely (beyond elemental signal exchange) Agree perhaps symbolic and subsymbolic KR must be integrated, thanks DR for pointing to that article I found this article useful also to explain the KR stack Symbols and subsymbols for representing knowledge: a catalogue raisonne https://www.ijcai.org/Proceedings/89-1/Papers/001.pdf I wonder, John and all, do you think it is reasonable to suggest that for each set of sub symbolic KR, there shoudl correspond a set of symbolic KR to support some kind of integration of the different levels I wonder Thanks to all PDM On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 11:00 PM Agnieszka Ławrynowicz < agnieszka.lawrynowicz@cs.put.poznan.pl> wrote: > Hi All, > > Of course deep neural networks may be seen as form of knowledge > representation in my opinion, more precisely they are sub-symbolic or > connectionist representations versus symbolic representations which are the > standard in Semantic Web. > Though it is not „latest KR”, but have been there for a long time under > exactly the above name (sub-symbolic representations). > > Best Regards and cheers, > Agnieszka > > > > Wiadomość napisana przez Diogo FC Patrao <djogopatrao@gmail.com> w dniu > 26.07.2019, o godz. 16:40: > > Hi Paola > > I'd say a NN is not as "knowledgy" as a decision tree. I would argue that > NN is a mathematical model that compiles previous data representing > cause/consequences, so it's the same type of knowledge as, say, a logarithm > table, versus the type of knowledge the infinte sum formula for evaluating > logarithms would represent. > > They certainly don't look the same thing to me. > > Cheers, > > dfcp > > -- > diogo patrão > > > > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 11:58 PM Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Sorry to bang on this topic, but its the task at hand at the moment >> >> I just found an article, which is good scientific survey then purports >> NN as a type of KR >> (casually sneaks in NN as the latest KR) >> >> This is published in a Springer peer reviewed publication and my makes >> all of my hairs stand up on my head >> >> This is the kind of rubbish that without further qualification is being >> passed down >> as the latest research, and which the future generations of AI >> scientists are being fed- >> >> wonder if anyone else has a problem with this proposition >> (sign of the times?) >> I am doing my best within my means to identify and contain this peril >> >> Article >> https://link-springer-com.nls.idm.oclc.org/article/10.1007/s00170-018-2433-8 >> >> >> A survey of knowledge representation methods and applications in >> machining process planning >> >> The machining process is the act of preparing the detailed operating >> instructions for changing an engineering design into an end product, which >> involves the removal of material from the part. Today, machining ... >> >> Xiuling Li, Shusheng Zhang, Rui Huang… in The International Journal of >> Advanced Manu… (2018) >> >> >> >> >
Received on Saturday, 27 July 2019 00:04:06 UTC