[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

[ba-unrev-talk] Fwd: [topicmaps-comment] on the Manhattan project for the Knowledge Sciences

Food for DKRs...    (01)

>From: paul <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>
>Subject: [topicmaps-comment] on the Manhattan project for the Knowledge 
>To: humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org,
>         David Dodds <drdodds42@hotmail.com>,
>         "'Rex Brooks'" <rexb@starbourne.com>,
>         "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
>Cc: Sherwin Han <han@abspro.com>,
>         Interculturalinsights <interculturalinsights@yahoogroups.com>,
>         topicmaps-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
>You said:
>"We don't yet need a Manhattan Project.   We must very quickly and
>somewhat loosely couple existing systems to enable better use of
>existing assets.   Then and only then should we be looking to
>more exotic or emerging systems to strengthen that capability."
>There is a proposal for a Manhattan type project in knowledge science so
>that the nature of the conversation about information technology might be
>changed.  We are looking for by-passes.  As you know, sometimes problems are
>caused by themselves, and by moving around them they simply disappear.
>The BCNGroup proposal is that, by using more of the biological and social
>models of intelligence and behavior, we might step away from some specific
>intractable problems that are rooting in the current approach to IT, and are
>rooting in what some folks define as being "rational" (example the KMCI
>theory of rational knowledge management).
>An advance of stratified-theory-based-knowledge-management technology and
>methodology might give the world some immediate space around the critical
>problems we face in security and trust relationships.  And the SAME advance
>(change in the nature of the discussion) might lead to increased
>productivity in business ecosystems and in managing the productiveness of
>complex processes such as bio-technology.  Remember, that our industries may
>soon be called on to de-pollute a 1/5 of the planet after a Nuclear War.
>Even if the world's scientists are not called in this way (let us hope), we
>still have 100 million people infected with AIDs, and environmental issues
>(as discussed in Al Gore's book).  (I think Al Gore ought to run again, and
>use the slogan:  "Well, let us try that one again.  And this time, let us
>get it right! "  )  We have the economic, political and environmental mess
>left over, from the Soviet area, in Russia and FSU.  We also have a moral
>crisis with capitalism as seen in the Enron mess.   All of these issues
>require knowledge economies.
>In some cases, we (some of us) are spending a great deal of money on work
>that is just not valuable (to anyone).  Creating very large ontologies might
>be part of the not useful activity, and a "new" formative approach might
>make this effort pay off in an expected way.
>The Cy ontology is a good test example of what might be done and what are
>the problems with a massive "static" ontology. Lenat has done good work, if
>only we could approach this work as a science rather than as a business
>proposition, then the "communities" might understand the nature of machine
>ontology...  And a community might eventually understand the notion of a
>"small formative ontology" that appears from a tri-level architecture using
>a large static ontology as a object of inquiry.  I believe that this notion
>of formative ontology is already a key component of the lower Cy ontologies.
>Small formative ontology is
>1) consistent with what the scientists know about memory, awareness and
>2) has agility and responsiveness to human information interactions
>and leads to eventChemistry and categoricalAbstraction.
>proposes that most of the resulting IP can be captured in the form of
>co-referenced Patent disclosures (accompanied at the same time by real
>public disclosure) , and thus that the community might "own" the E-Knowledge
>business ecosystem.  My work with CoreTalk (Sandy Klausner) is directed at
>setting up this possibility by using the CoreTalk CoreIQ Memory Management
>Engine and Operating System as a common framework (a Knowledge Operating
>System) for rendering knowledge technology innovations as binaries.
>We are looking for a partner like SUN or IBM, but on our terms - not theirs.
>So we have to get the patents filed.  A grass roots membership is developing
>at BCNGroup
>and this is lending creditability to the Manhattan Project concept.
>E-business work on ontologies is productive, but what about data mining and
>data warehouses?  Do we have a problem with treating profiles of people
>places and things as if these profiles are "correct" when actually not only
>are they NOT correct, but they are shallow in a systemic fashion (the
>Autonomy profiles (DREs) for example)
>Stratified complexity required more that a single workshop.
>So all we ask is that someone somewhere start to work on something that will
>replace those approaches that are shown to be limited.  You agree, I assume?
>You said (well):
>To repeat a saying from olden AI days, the principle of rationality
>is a weak predictor of human behavior.  Yet it is the over reliance
>of depending on a common definition of "rational" that is weak.  To
>the terrorist who developed in a refugee camp, a world view of
>western domination and corruption, the act of flying an airliner
>into a building is rational.  It represents an exchange of value
>for effect; life for notification.   While of interest to delve
>into the deeper meaning of that notification, this will not prevent
>the act itself.  To do this, the individuals with that definition
>of rationality, with the means to act, and the acts that prepare
>for an act must be identified.   The concept that regardless of
>the internal motivation, the pattern of behaviors that precede
>an act of a declared type is the working definition of emergence
>is the behaviorist view.   This view is sufficient to enable
>public safety systems to work in concert to defend against such
>acts.  "
>I repeat:
>"While of interest to delve
>into the deeper meaning of that notification, this will not prevent
>the act itself."
>and I question this directly.
>The concerns of the terrorist ARE the causes of the terrorism.  Period.  To
>understand and to eliminate the concerns of the terrorist will reduce to
>close to zero the motivation for terrorism.  Yes?  One will always have
>random acts of violence, but one emergence will bring a atomic bomb into New
>York city and ignite this.
>One way to do this is to kill all of the terrorist.  The other way is to
>look deep into our social practices and see that in some cases the concerns
>are about how we have treated other cultures.
>How can one mark-up the scenarios that lead to the negotiation between
>cultures (and viewpoints)?
>Is this the purpose of the Human Mark - up standard?    (02)