Hi Jack,
Sorry for responding so late. This would be a good thread to start but I
must admit that I don't know what evolutionary programming means exactly.
How about clarifying the term as a starting point?
On the subject of knowledge representation, I tend to believe that true
knowledge only occurs in the presence of people so I have a difficulty
admitting that a machine can represent knowledge. For the moment I still
cling to the idea that machines can only represent information and data. For
sure, a machine can optimize the way it represents the information so that
it is more understandable to people. We can see that with all the people
involved with the mapping of Web sites and databases. But when information
comes from other people rather than from a machine, I think that it is
better to enable the people involved to generate their own representation
rather than to give full power to the machine to find the "correct"
representation. What if we gave the power to Web site designers to create
their own graphical representation (site map) of their site rather than
trying to mechanically create such a representation after the site is
already built?
Gil
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Park [mailto:jackpark@verticalnet.com]
Sent: samedi, 8. juillet 2000 01:41
To: unrev-II@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [unrev-II] "Trees of Knowledge" Map vs. DKR Enables Knowledge
Mapping?
Thanks, Gil.
Your comment about software dictating the knowledge representation. Howard
Liu and I have been talking about the appropriateness of evolutionary
programming to the construction of knowledge structures. Indeed, it would
be worthwhile to start a thread on that topic here.
Jack
From: Gil Regev
Hi Jack,
There are a few other important points in the products Trivium have:
1. UMap takes a set of keywords you're searching for and gives you a
graphical representation of the results, but more importantly, I think, it
represents all the additional keywords it found in the pages containing the
original keywords and the relationships between these keywords. This helps
the users to expand their understanding of a subject matter by helping them
find new concepts (keywords).
2. Gingo is about mapping peoples' skills. Levy's and Authier's book
about knowledge trees was about fighting what the french call exclusion, the
fact that the unemployed become excluded from society. Knowledge trees are
supposed to give a sense of what it is they know and start looking at how to
improve themselves by learning what they don't already know. The authors
also describe how "knowledge" can become a currency that can be exchanged.
You exchange "knowledge" with others in order to get recognition and
possibly future "Knowledge". I am not sure that the term "Knowledge" is
appropriate in this context if we define it as something that exists only in
the context of a person. In this sense you can only exchange information but
not knowledge.
3. There's also the concept of "patents" which are kind of exams that
you create in order to test other peoples' knowledge. Interestingly, you get
a "blason" when you conceive an exam. The Knowledge tree of an individual is
the tree of "blasons" that the individual has accumulated. The knowledge
tree of an organization is more complex and normally consists of the
accumulation of the individuals' or departments' knowledge trees.
The thing I have a problem with with regard to both these products has
to do with their fixed representation that is decided by the software rather
than by the user. In some ways it defeats constructivism because it prevents
users from creating their own representations. Otherwise, these are very
very interesting products.
Gil
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Park [mailto:jackpark@verticalnet.com]
Sent: vendredi, 30. juin 2000 17:21
To: unrev-II@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [unrev-II] "Trees of Knowledge" Map vs. DKR Enables
Knowledge Mapping?
Wow! This thread is getting longish, and fun. TriVium appears to
understand
the issues. There is more on the Trees of Knowledge at
http://www.connected.org/learn/levy.html
What's important, at least to me, is that they center a presentation
on a
single focal point. By way of analogy (which, itself is an absolutely
necessary feature in any knowledge engine), Doug Lenat's Eurisko
program
used a concept he called *focus of attention* (he wasn't alone --
other AI
jockeys used that term) as a means of computing the *priority* placed
on
some task on an agenda.
Now, we're getting to the meat, IMHO, of the matter. We only learn
when we
are interested and we tend to agendize things that are interesting to
us,
leaving the 'c' jobs for later -- perhaps except for those few who are
compulsive about getting 'c' jobs out of the way. Eurisko's
architecture
applied an agenda and task structure that kept Eurisko working on
those
tasks with highest priority. Each task cycle saw a slight decay in
priority
of all tasks (forgetting), and each task, while being executed, had
the
ability to modify the priority of any task still on the agenda
(feedback).
Thus, it became possible to use *focus of attention* as a means to
keep some
train of thought running for a long time (greatly to the probabilistic
detriment of those not running). That, of course, explains <gg> why
the
excuse "I forgot" is valid.
I am saying here that an agenda-based architecture, one with feedback
and
decay mechanisms, comes closest of anything I have seen yet to a
biologically inspired architecture. My program The Scholar's Companion
implements just such an architecture <note> not bragging here, just
stating
that I have some experience with this approach </note>. All of which
is to
suggest that it would be really nice to see an English version of the
books
mentioned at TriVium (else I'll have to dust off my 40-year old high
school
French ;-(
Merge a couple of threads together here and we're liable to have an
image of
the DKR.
Cheers,
Jack
From: John J. Deneen <JJDeneen@ricochet.net>
> So the following is some interesting info from TriVium.com, relative
to
our design
> requirments for the DKR to enable knowledge mapping:
>
> On 6/15/00 at SRI, after Gil Regev demonstrated his collaborative
concept
mapping
> applet (http://icapc4.epfl.ch/knowarepub,
http://icapc4.epfl.ch/g99space),
he
> suggested checking out the "The Trees of Knowledge" technology
(i.e.,
Umap, Seek-K,
> and Gingo) at TriVium.com based on my comments about Cartia.com
Relational
Topic
> Mapping (RTM) technology called "ThemeScape."
> (http://www.cartia.com/products/index.html)
>
> Proprietary Technology
> http://www.trivium.fr/new/techno.htm
>
> ...."For information, type "Trees of Knowledge" or "Gingo" (the
first
real-time
> visualization software for organizational information and
competencies) in
the
> search engine of your choice. You will then have access to
interviews,
case studies,
> and the opinions of various members of the Internet community
(journalists, leaders,
> citizens, critics, etc.) on the subject. This information is
constantly
updated,
> given the increasing power of this theory, and its practical
applications
to daily
> life. Reconnect often to remain up-to-date on the latest
developments. For
a global
> vision of different opinions, why not make a Umap map of all the
information?"...
>
> The map
> The Umap map is a mosaic of colored pieces on a uniform background.
Each
of these
> pieces represents a thesaurus word; each word of the thesaurus finds
its
place in
> the map.
>
> What is the map?
> Placed between the windows of the thesaurus and the document group
(or
body), the
> Umap map indicates the relative proximity of thesarus words,
beginning
with their
> relative significance in each text.
>
> Significance of the map
> By grouping the words in proximity zones (small islands,
near-islands,
concentric
> layers, etc.), the map offers an intuitive approach to someone
familiar
with the
> logical topic connections that exist between certain texts.
>
> What use is it
> By spotting common topics within certain texts, one can quickly
select the
texts of
> interest, or remove those that are momentarily unneeded. ....
>
> Why Cartography ?
> http://www.trivium.fr/new/carto.htm
>
> Concept & Ideas
> What is exactly Knowledge Management and why do companies need KM
solutions today ?
> http://www.trivium.fr/new/index_2.htm
> http://www.trivium.fr/new/gingo/main.htm
>
> Rod Welch wrote:
>
> > Bill,
> >
> > Sorry have not been able to respond sooner.
> >
> > The aim of a knowledge management effort, is to map a share of
important
> > connections showing cause and effect that the mind forms when it
encounters
> > information during a meeting, looking at a picture, reading a
book,
walking
> > across the street, i.e., input from sight and sound that
constitutes
human
> > experience.
> >
> > This uses writing in a different way, to set out our personal
understanding of
> > the why and wherefore of events. In particular we want to
identify our
mistakes
> > by checking alignment, and make corrections in small communication
miscues
> > before they become big problems. The DKR rigged in a certain way
can
hardwire
> > the relationships so we can get them back when needed to improve
upon
> > spontaneous impressions. The DKR provides context that leverages
the
value of
> > information. It enhances research by providing a routine template
of
structure
> > that extends traditional punctuation and rules of grammar for
imparting
meaning
> > to information.
> >
> > It is not all a bed of roses. When we begin making connections,
the
result
> > looks confusing to some. Jack and Doug are working on tools to
improve
the
> > view.
> >
> > There is a lot more that can be accomplished with an engine of
knowledge
to
> > enhance traditional work practices, e.g., reporting, engineering,
law,
medical
> > practice, accounting, scientific research, etc. In short, the DKR
provides an
> > environment and tools (OHS) for getting a share of our knowledge
into a
form
> > that allows it to be tested for accuracy, and applied
consistently,
promptly
> > when and if needed. The big distinction between this idea and the
popular
> > notion of storing "knowledge" from books, magazines and so on in a
repository,
> > is that each of us have a lot of knowledge from our daily
experience
that we
> > primarily rely upon to do our work and live our lives. This
latter body
of
> > stuff is what we want to improve, and in doing so, the formal
stuff in
books
> > will get better also.
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > Rod
> >
> > Bill Bearden wrote:
> > >
> > > Rod,
> > >
> > > You bring up an interesting and valid point with which I am
currently
> > > struggling. I have been reading (and trying to understand) some
of
> > > Malhotra's extensions of Churchman, esp.
> > >
http://www.brint.com/members/online/200603/kmhitech/kmhitech.html.
There,
> > > Malhotra quotes Churchman:
> > >
> > > "To conceive of knowledge as a collection of information seems
to rob
the
> > > concept of all of its life... Knowledge resides in the user and
not
in the
> > > collection. It is how the user reacts to a collection of
information
that
> > > matters."
> > >
> > > This sounds very much like what you say.
> > >
> > > But if knowledge can not exist outside of the mind, how can a
DKR be
> > > possible? By this definition, neither book nor computer can
contain
> > > knowledge. I believe in the concept of the DKR. Therefore, I can
not
accept
> > > a definition which fundamentally prevents its existence.
> > >
> > > So, with your definition, my previous comment about knowledge
being
> > > everywhere is not valid. But I would guess that your definition
invalidates
> > > lots of things that have been discussed.
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Rod Welch [mailto:rowelch@attglobal.net]
> > > > Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2000 6:57 AM
> > > > To: unrev-II@egroups.com
> > > > Subject: [unrev-II] 2020 Hindsight: A Fictional DKR Narrative
(long
> > > > (sorry))
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bill,
> > > >
> > > > Just, on your comment that "knowledge is generated all the
time.
> > > > It is all
> > > > around us in books, etc..."
> > > >
> > > > My sense is a little different.
> > > >
> > > > "Knowledge" resides in the minds of people, and so is
constantly
> > > > being formed
> > > > out of the information that is all around us in books, TV,
> > > > meetings, and so on,
> > > > as an interplay between our experience, and the mental ability
to
form
> > > > consistent pattersn connections or patterns of cause and
effect.
> > > >
> > > > Rod
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bill Bearden wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Rod,
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bill,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Very thoughtful illustration you set out in your letter
> > > > today... <SNIP />
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > > <SNIP />
> > > > >
> > > > > > ... your open source query
> > > > > > might be aided
> > > > > > by explaining how that approach saves time, improves
productivity, and
> > > > > > earnings. Those criteria have proven to be good generic
starting
> > > > > > points for
> > > > > > evaluating tools and work methods. ...
> > > > > <MORE-SNIP />
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree that the traditional "value" metrics are useful.
> > > > However, I question
> > > > > how well they apply to something truly new. I doubt that
> > > > electric lights or
> > > > > telephones were cost effective replacements for existing
> > > > technology right
> > > > > when they were introduced. If DKRs ever prove truly useful,
it
> > > > may only be
> > > > > after there are lots and lots of them hooked together and
people
are
> > > > > immersed in them as a normal part of their lives. That is a
> > > > long ways off.
> > > > >
> > > > > And anyway, my text was an exercise in speculation as much
as
> > > > anything. It
> > > > > was just me trying to describe part of a system I see in my
> > > > head (if I close
> > > > > my eyes real tight after I've had a couple of beers :-).
> > > > >
> > > > > <SNIP-SNIP-SNIP />
> > > > >
> > > > > > In the meantime, it turns out that using a keyboard,
computer
> > > > screen, and
> > > > > > special tools seems to augment human intelligence beyond
what
can
> > > > > > be expected
> > > > > > from reliance on voice recognition and pictures, for
reasons
> > > > in the record
> > > > > > reviewing Andy Grove's book on 980307...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/98/03/07/161449.HTM#L351552
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Generating knowledge is hard work. ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, but knowledge is generated all the time. It is all
around
> > > > us. Capturing
> > > > > it and encoding it so computers can store it and people can
> > > > learn it is the
> > > > > problem as I see it. IMO, this process will remain very
> > > > difficult until we
> > > > > have more immersive user interfaces. Until then, it *might*
> > > > make sense to
> > > > > try and "scrape" knowledge from existing stores (e.g. books,
databases,
> > > > > source code, etc). Truly integrated information systems
> > > > probably yields more
> > > > > short term bang for the buck. Again, just my speculation.
> > > > >
> > > > > > ... But people don't mind hard work, if it
> > > > > > yields rewards and is fun. Games are an example. People
"work"
> > > > > > awfully hard at
> > > > > > golf, tennis, running, exercise, and computer games,
because
they
> > > > > > get immediate
> > > > > > satisfaction of varying kinds from the experience.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I love the point you make about "work" and games. IMO,
Csikszentmihalyi
> > > > > explains fairly well why that is in his book, Flow. I was
excited
to see
> > > > > Flow mentioned on the L3D philosophy page
> > > > > (http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~l3d/philosophy.html). L3D
> > > > (LifeLong Learning &
> > > > > Design) is the "mother" project of Dynasites, to which John
> > > > Deneen submitted
> > > > > a link yesterday.
> > > > >
> > > > > <FINAL-SNIP />
Community email addresses:
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
Community email addresses:
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Community email addresses: Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
Shortcut URL to this page: http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 21 2000 - 07:06:05 PDT