Re: The future of KR in retrospective

Thank you all for sharing the interest,

I was going over the Special Issue by ACM edited by Brachman
and noted only 14 citations?  Isnt that strange?
https://dl-acm-org.nls.idm.oclc.org/citation.cfm?id=1056752

Also, its content is rather thin-
I would have thought otherwise-

This makes me feel not too bad that our SI has not yet received relevant
submissions

(hint, hint.....)

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/systems/special_issues/Artificial_Intelligence_Knowledge_Representation

 So I am requesting an extension  until the end of the year and will
announce the first article with  pointers and  extended deadline soon.

Bestest




On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 8:28 PM William Waites <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

> >> what is ontology building if not a giant classification exercise?
>
> As far as know, predicting structure is still an active and recent area of
> research.
>
> I don't mean to suggest that this is a solved problem! Just that it is a
> very closely related problem and that the NN aproach looks like it scales
> much better in both building and inferencing and though it is error-prone,
> it is robust to noise.
>
> > > Explicit representation of knowledge is almost entirely absent in
> > > connectionist systems.
> >
> > Are you sure? Isn't for instance word embedding relying on sequence of
> words
> > and as such take features from knowledge representation? Similarly,
> markov
> > models rely on the probability of appearance of a given "token". The
> token
> > can encode both sense and grammatical features.
>
> I think so. Sure you have input and output tokens. But I think the
> "meaning"
> (or the "semantics", or the "knowledge") is encoded in the mapping. That
> mapping is opaque and not really very good for answering "why?"
>
> > > A child doesn't learn by being fed a bunch of facts and rules, a child
> > > learns by example and a trial and error feedback loop.
> >
> > Again, this doesn't expel rules or dynamic programming. Somehow I connect
> > logic to dynamic programming.
>
> Sort of. Almost every rule governing language and behaviour and interaction
> with the world is really very hard to figure out and explicitly state.
> Maybe
> in some cases it is possible. But that's not what children do.
>
> > Logic is the source of truth whereas connectionist approach provides a
> > summary.
>
> Interesting. My intuition is precisely the inverse!
>
> Best wishes,
>
> William Waites | wwaites@inf.ed.ac.uk
> Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science
> School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
>
> --
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>
>