Andrew, (01)
Your effort to understand what Ballard has been doing is paying off, it is
easy to see. You are covering ground that takes some time for those who are
prepared, and can not be traversed by those who are not prepared. (02)
The dependency of the full reality of a "concept" on an experiential (see
work by Peirce and others in semiotics) or perceptual act assigns to this
full reality a "pragmatic" axis where category formation is "in process" and
under re-creation. Thus "knowledge representation" of a concept is both
relative to the experience and is not (fully) stationary. (03)
But to the extend that the categories forming are strongly similar to
"invariance" in other concepts (also being experienced), then we can see a
shared scope to "something". We also see the bases for QSAR.... as
discussed in Chapter 4 and 6 of (04)
http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/book.htm (05)
The second school calls this perceptual invariance, and "semantic covers"
are related to (in my mind) Sowa, Ballard, Adi, and other theories of
semantic primitive. (06)
At this point we face some technical difficulties. Should the real time
measurement of social discourse use the Sowa, the Ballard, or the Adi set of
primitives - (or are each of these sufficient in specific ways and not
sufficient in other ways)? (07)
Over the next 30 -45 days I am focusing my effort on the knowledge
management community and practices that have been developed and used for the
purpose of knowledge elicitation. (08)
The knowledge elicitation might be fully specified as a OASIS standard, and
we are looking at this carefully as a means to support community centric
service methodology (CCSM). We might also see a supporting specification on
SOA with Topic Maps. (09)
A successful OASIS CCSM specification will need to show relationship and use
of the following (010)
WSDL
ebXML
BCM
Topic Maps
OWL Full
BPEL
BPMN
UML
SOA=IM
SOA-CS
FERA (011)
I do not see ebSOA distinctly and have left this out of my list for now,
since I feel that ebXML and FERA and BPEL cover the space. (012)
Stratification of the individual conceptualization (as in the BCM lower
layer of the four BCM layers) and automated aggregation of a community layer
(BCM's "business layer") is the key to the technological innovation
suggested in the BCNGroup RoadMap. (013)
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew S. Townley [mailto:andrew.townley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 1:26 AM
To: rlballard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Dennis L. Thomas; Paul Prueitt (ontologystream)
Subject: RE: a peer review of mark - 3 technology (014)
Hi Dick, (015)
Thanks for answering. No problems on the delay. (016)
Please forgive the naive questions, I'm still on a bit of a vertical
learning curve with this stuff. However, with the help of Google and
archived comments from yourself, I think I answered my fundamental
question: how does your work deal with the idea that the understanding
of a concept is dependent on the person understanding/perceiving that
concept within their current context (as stated by David Bohm in
"Wholeness and the Implicate Order")? (017)
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the answer is: it doesn't. (018)
I found some information from a discussion between Paul, yourself and
John Sowa from back in 2001 along with the PDF version of the FAQ and
"First Commercial Knowledge Asset Production Process" from your
website. In digesting this, I think I understand the following: (019)
* a knowledge base is initially created to address a specific need,
therefore it is only representing the theories which directly relate to
the business needs of the stakeholders. (020)
In relation to my question, this means that you have created/defined a
shared understanding of reality within a given domain. (021)
* Within this established knowledge base and set of "compatibile"
theories, it is clear that there can be only one unique definition for
each concept, otherwise the fundamental theories would not be
compatible. (022)
* Paul's "choice points" that he's been talking to me about are really
each n-ary concept node with connecting nodes in the overall concept
graph. (023)
If I understand what I read, these connections are actually based on
assumptions or constraints which have been identified as related during
the creation of the model and populated during the ingest of information
into the system. (024)
* From the above, the ontology represented by the knowledge asset is
domain-specific. (025)
* The knowledge base is not intended to explore new themes outside the
original domain or provide considerations of alternate views of
"reality", because they would change the domain scope of the ontology. (026)
I'm lead to this conclusion from the phrase in the FAQ: (027)
"until every question the knowledgebase was intended to answer." (bullet
#1, page 15) (028)
>From this, I am assuming that adding additional information into the
knowledge base will create new connections and relationships within the
concept graph, but these will be based on the theories codified into the
creation of the "knowledge operating system" when the asset is
designed. From this, I am curious how easy it is to expand the theories
within a knowledge asset to new domains. At what point does the
cohesiveness and uniqueness of a concept break down? Is this possible,
or is it explicitly or implicitly prevented within the design of the
system? (029)
In the interests of full disclosure, I am only beginning to be exposed
to KM, KR, semantics and ontology, so maybe these are questions that are
obvious once I have the background. Also, feel free to ignore or
answer/address any of the above as you see fit. I'm sure you're very
busy. (030)
>From what I've read over the last couple of days, I really do think your
work is very interesting. As a human, some of the future implications
of it if it becomes as successful as you want are a bit scary, but I can
certainly relate to the drivers you mention originating from
conventional software system design. (031)
At any rate, all this has gotten me interested enough in aspects of this
field to try and learn more about it. Having read the syllabus from
your Winter Quarter 2005 course, I hope you reach the audience you
intend. It is clear that even through exposure to the material in the
briefest way, it expands the way one thinks. (032)
Thanks very much for your time, (033)
ast (034)
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 13:07, rlballard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Paul and Andrew
>
> Sorry to be so slow in responding.
>
> We are getting the new course organized today with some uncertainty as to
> UCI Extension's ability to reach the audience we would like. In past
> iterations Dennis put the class together out of senior project management
> specialists and business owners. This time we are trying more diligently
to
> reach into the younger labor pool of want-to-be knowledge engineers.
>
> From my perspective as a physical scientist, the significant contributors
to
> any n-ary are "degrees of freedom" -- decisive choices seemingly available
> to any decision maker. As with any use of theory, the ultimate correctness
> of the list they compile may be guilty of mixing apples with oranges.
>
> Still we can expect that techniques like factor analysis, sensitivity,
etc.
> will progressively speak of first order, second order, etc. approximations
> to one or more operant theories. Engineers typically focus on "decision
> drivers" -- the presence of compelling theories ("conops", concepts of
> operation) with the power to force a decision into nearest first alignment
> with the goal sought. Once in the ballpark, then all other issues may be
> examined for their particular beneficial or adverse consequences in
> assessing their ultimate decision impact.
>
> Clearly the situational degrees of freedom are easiest to argue as
> potentially most relevant, unless the decision path studied explicitly
voids
> their consideration or need.
>
> The necessary presence of human decision makers with varying degrees of
> experience and authority is an early requirement and necessity in avoiding
> asset liabilities beyond those acceptable as simple helpful advice.
> Obviously the early race to reference dominance will begin as soon as Mark
3
> hits the market and demonstrates its competitive virtues. Thereafter the
> first stylistic race is on -- in defining the unique style and format to
be
> associated with "patterns of thought." Decisions to quibble on that
> characterization and its unique, short-term memory requirement are likely
to
> be increasingly fruitless -- here forward.
>
> Once the earliest styles and virtue are accepted, then the reference
> dominance race will favor those pushing market closing initiatives based
> upon existing, non-electronic knowledge assets and previously marketable
> reputations for authority. This race will be hard and costly because the
> scope of resources needed will jump quickly to whole libraries. Publishers
> are typically most conservative and they compete constantly to realign and
> re-factor their asset lists competitively -- so publishing mergers and
> acquisitions should become endemic.
>
> Many vendors will step forward and compete heavily on cost and massive
> strategic acquisitions from available public sources. Of necessity these
> must concentrate first in specific job related categories. The earliest
> offerings will offer easy pickings for everyone claiming scholarly
> authority, but that kind of nitpicking can be overwhelmed by the massive
> scale of non-electronic holdings available. The more constructive
approaches
> are those that favor professional detailing of theory-acceptance and
> outcomes base evidences of successful practice.
>
> The most important early work fill be aimed at modeling standardizations
> based upon conventional 2-dimensional representations (mediating
structures)
> re-expressed in n-dimensional forms. That activity forces us to radically
> rethink our linguistic bias toward subsumption hierarchies -- the subject
of
> my "first lesson's learned letter."
>
> These are extraordinary times for new leadership to step forward -- jump
in,
> the field is wide open.
>
> Dick
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Prueitt (ontologystream) [mailto:psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 2:41 PM
> To: 'Andrew S. Townley'; rlballard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Dennis L. Thomas
> Subject: RE: a peer review of mark - 3 technology
>
>
> Dick and Dennis
>
> Andrew is asking a question about the uniqueness of the semantic n-ary
>
> I am finding that Andrew asks many of the same type of questions as I
> do/did.
>
> Perhaps, Dick; if you have time, you could reflect on why this question
came
> up, and how you might answer.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew S. Townley [mailto:andrew.townley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 5:36 PM
> To: Paul Prueitt (ontologystream)
> Subject: Re: a peer review of mark - 3 technology
>
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> Thanks for the slides. They were very interesting. Wow. If that's
> what you folks have been up to, it's very, very cool. I didn't think it
> made sense to respond to everyone, because I just had a question maybe
> you could clear up a bit.
>
> In the slides, the implication is that there is always one single
> semantic definition for a concept or thing. How does this relate to
> context? On page 16, it seems to be involved as assumptions, but what
> about perception? How does this fit in with the likes of Bohm and
> Feynman (and even Heraclitus for that matter) on reality and truth not
> being fixed notions?
>
>
> The KM/OASIS reading is on the agenda for tomorrow. Should be able to
> get through a lot of what I have.
>
> Thanks again for the slides--fascinating...
>
> ast
>
> On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 17:35, Paul Prueitt (ontologystream) wrote:
> > Azamat,
> >
> >
> >
> > You may wish to consider this presentation and to make a principled
> > discussion about the way in which Dick Ballard is using his terms..
> >
> >
> >
> > To assert specific implications.
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree with John Sowa on many elements of analysis, particularly
> > about the need to pull back into a conservative position, with respect
> > to use of language to assert things implicitly.
> >
> >
> >
> > For example "machines that know each other" or "machines that know".
> > can both be ok in context to what are the implicit assertions IF a
> > second school position is assumed. So we (the second school) mean
> > that through human use the n-ary information structure in the Mark 3
> > will use structural information to bring finite state machines to a
> > specific state. These state transitions and the representation of
> > structure within information (represented in the n-ary form) is
> > clearly a simplification of the current (XML registry/repository)
> > standards.
> >
> >
> >
> > That the nary transforms is conducting a type of "knowledge
> > processing", I would concur. But I am close to the boundary - and do
> > not wish to step into first school language use.
> >
> >
> >
> > A "knowledge operating system" is possible (as Dick, Don Mitchell and
> > I have been discussing since 2000).
> >
> >
> >
> > No buzz here just a proper and clear description of the magic that
> > could be available if n-ary ontology is used properly ( as I feel the
> > Mark 3 will allow). But there is no need to give the assertion that
> > the machine becomes endowed with a soul .. (An interesting discussion
> > could be engaged here regarding quantum computing and the emergence of
> > a machine spirit due to the non-locality effects).
> >
> >
> >
> > So the trick is to stay away from inferred assertions that end up
> > bothering some people, even business people.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > You know my position well, so perhaps you might orient your thinking
> > to second school viewpoint (as much as you feel is comfortable). and
> > see if there is some minor correct to terminological use that would
> > help both Ballard and the knowledge science revolution.
> >
> >
> >
> > Your work could quite easily be converted into the n-ary form and
> > reside as a Mark 3 resource.. As a matter of fact.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I have included in the bcc some who may wish to join a discussion
> > about this. but which I place in bcc so that they do not feel a need
> > to respond unless they have time to do so.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> >
> > From: Dennis L. Thomas [mailto:dlthomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 8:06 PM
> > To: Linda M Wynott
> > Cc: Richard L. Ballard
> > Subject: Re: Presentation PDF - Delphi II event, Phoenix
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Linda,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please find attached Dr. Ballard's Creating Systems That Know
> > presentation in PDF form. This is a 3.1MB file.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please know that as a result of the high caliber crowd that will be
> > attending the Phoenix event, Dr. Ballard has decided to unveil his
> > entire Knowledge Science as a lead into the F/A-18 database/simulation
> > integration project.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > This is significant because for the first time Ballard presents his
> > entire KNOWLEDGE SCIENCE, defines what KNOWLEDGE is based on this
> > science, what KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT means from the perspective of
> > knowledge science, how KNOWLEDGE can be measured, and how machines can
> > capture knowledge at absolute bit limits - and reason with that
> > knowledge RATIONALLY like humans do. This presentation also explains
> > how Knowledge Foundations' N-Dimensional technology integrates
> > unlimited concepts, ideas, thought patterns and the theory that gives
> > them meaning into PREDICTIVE SEMANTIC WEBS.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your interest in this valuable work, and your invitation to present at
> > Delphi Phoenix, is very much appreciated.
> >
> >
> >
> --
> Join me in Dubrovnik, Croatia on May 8-10th when I will be speaking at
> InfoSeCon 2006. For more information, see www.infosecon.org.
>
>
****************************************************************************
> ***********************
> The information in this email is confidential and may be legally
privileged.
> Access to this email by anyone other than the intended addressee is
> unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any
> review, disclosure, copying, distribution, retention, or any action taken
or
> omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful.
If
> you are not the intended recipient, please reply to or forward a copy of
> this message to the sender and delete the message, any attachments, and
any
> copies thereof from your system.
>
****************************************************************************
> ***********************
>
>
>
--
Join me in Dubrovnik, Croatia on May 8-10th when I will be speaking at
InfoSeCon 2006. For more information, see www.infosecon.org. (035)
****************************************************************************
***********************
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
Access to this email by anyone other than the intended addressee is
unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any
review, disclosure, copying, distribution, retention, or any action taken or
omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If
you are not the intended recipient, please reply to or forward a copy of
this message to the sender and delete the message, any attachments, and any
copies thereof from your system.
****************************************************************************
*********************** (036)
_________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/soa-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/soa/
Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/
Community Wiki: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AnnouncementofSOACoP (037)
|