| Meeting
OHS Project , the unfinished revolution previous meeting, next meeting. 1 Agenda: 2
Present: 3 Armstrong, Eric - TreeLight
Minutes: 4 Meeting at SRI,
Welcome Sonny Kirkley, information in place, inc., Indiana Welcome invited speaker Mary Keeler, researcher at University of Washington. 4B Doug, Pat, Lee, Eric, Eugene met with SourceForge (i.e. VA Linux), portal website for open source software development Lee: Only requirement for project to be open source (i.e. stamped by OSI) Want to develop hosting services to large companies that seek hosting service within company Interested in better tools for software development Keen on allocation of resources Can host our development project, or at least track its progress Doug or Lee invited to upcoming seminar Doug Possible to invite our whole group? Lee Will investigate Lee Other news? Rob What knowledge means. Morris and Eric and Rob discussed knowledge management at Intel Impetus: Bellinger working definitions to guide development Doug Need glossary Joe Difference between transcode and translate Lee Zope is installed on bootstrap.org Will announce when available to users John Deneen Gary Baldwin, tech director, GigaSystems Berkeley Wireless System John will bring in their licensing agreement for reference Doug Effort to connect Academia Sinica Doug Adobe IBM Almaden Rob 0.6 requirements exist Lee Must think through requirements more carefully Eric Narrative is fundamental to object-oriented design Find nouns and verbs in narrative Lee Eugene is working on use cases Higher level architecture based on Jack and Howard's meeting with Doug Jack Developing architecture is evolving process. 4C Agenda: invited speaker Mary Keeler Mary: who is the audience? Lee: SRI, interested people attracted by desire to use the OHS Mary: How does OHS relate to the DKR? Lee: Need means to enable and track collaboration for document preparation, management Mary: How does OHS relate to W3C? Lee: we want to build on what's available from W3C Lee: John Bozak of W3C is interested. 4D Welcome Cynthia Waddell, San Jose City Manager Dept, law and policy, paper on Disability, compliance officer for American Disability's Act Doug Digital government GSA Doug Neil Scott, Stanford, is working on user interfaces for disabled people. E4 Lee No need to limit to documents in traditional sense Mary see whiteboard Jack setting context for her discussion to apply Doug: What's an ontology Mary: an area in classical philosophy that has been abandoned by modern philosophy The study of what really is there Existence and reality Being and existence Mary Ancients asked what exists Moderns gave up questions on existence Modern philosophers deal only with semantic relations with represented entities---modern logic KR people picked up terms, e.g. "entity," "attribute," from ontology Scientist leap to expressed evidence, and take forms for existence Should go back to find more evidence to be responsible for the existence level Mary Raw data; types; symbols Sequence, not hierarchy: tone, types, token Possibility, actuality, probability Potentiality, types, symbols Blur, lens, image Raw data: we consider these as the foundation in the DKR, rather than a yet lower level But we don't limit documents to mere text Want to get to the symbols OHS gets at the symbols Flow of information Arguments expressed by OHS users are raw data, so will sink to raw data layer Will bubble up to symbols again Logic Peirce Lens distorts and help Role of logic: Logic is a lens Aristotle Jack: note, compare Peirce's notion that theories are always improving parallels Doug's notion of the OHS/DKR's evolutionary development Categories and relations Because of lens, can see things in blur, but also miss things Must go back and forget lens focus to see what's there "The more precise, the less you see." Warren: psychology report confirms that for human perception Think of stages of improving the imperfect lens In intellectual development, we create new lenses also Traditional logic does nothing about existence Peirce: only when we built mechanism to do reality check do we get reliability; just checking validity for relationship between forms is not enough. Validity is soundness for relations of symbols Reliability is soundness for relations of symbols grounded in raw data, or what exists So therefore Conceptual Graph An example of a means to create lens A graphical notation to express logic A lens in itself Other means exist Mary (aside): Peirce liked triads The notion of Generation is expressed; one cannot express the generation notion without three: two won't do it Affector, Affected, and an abstract relation---the act of affecting Note, the abstract relation is artificial, abstract, and not on the same order of things as Affector and Affected. How DKR can be that mechanism to do reality check for reliability The types layer is the lens Raw data (tone) is messy and left out by positivist, but we must consider that layer Possibility, actuality, probability Raw data, e.g. sounds in the room, blur, undifferentiated In top layer: has committed bias, user world view In middle layer: tries to be neutral, though never can be, but keep trying to be better at been neutral Just as a lens can never be perfect The lens maker keeps trying to evolve a better, more neutral lens How does phenomenology fit in? some philosophers wanted to replace Aristotle's metaphysics with phenomenology appearance: if we don't know what things really are, we can deal only with how things appear---positivist We in the DKR take documents as the existence layer Lee: people not deal with what is, but what is reported There's no perfect lens we must keep improving the lens we must keep developing the lens knowing imperfect and will keep improving we use the lens with the knowledge of its imperfection Raw data: anything can relate to anything else---we don't want to establish relations at the raw data layer, i.e. the layer of possibilities Actuality middle layer: establish relations Doug: can conceptual graph.? Mary: Existential graph lots richer than Conceptual Graphs (CG) Middle layer: impose lens on the blur of potentiality (raw) bottom layer Middle layer: holds the Conceptual Graphs, which translate readily to natural language, impose a knowledge representation (KR) Raw data, types, rules---more familiar terms to KR community Raw: undifferentiated experience---raw data Caution: communication should not be expected to, and need not, result in agreement It isn't a goal to bring different views to the same view Goal: Must enable clear expression of all those (possibly) different views that they can be compared and talked about Collaboration should not just come to agreement, Never should sacrifice diversity to agreement Instead collaboration should facilitate growing the thing to something greater than itself Cyclic operation: imperfect lens always, must keep checking for its imperfections so to improve it Scientists should keep refreshing what they see Eric: Requirements, design, implementation in software development Alternatives If implementation fails, then user can go back to requirements Lee: collaboration means bringing voices together, tool should expose where consensus exists and where disagreement exists. Tool guarantees validity, not reliability Want the system to do the boring logic, so human can do more interesting things Conceptual graph----Alabama. Look for cg community there Cg systems exist Cg just an instrument, just an interface that makes apparent Cg good for machine and human to understand Think of knowledge as structurally richer data. 4F
---
Above space serves to put hyperlinked
targets at the top of the window
|