Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 14:12:02 -0400
From: | Howard Liu |
hliu@verticalnet.com Reply-To: unrev-II@egroups.com |
To: | unrev-II@egroups.com |
Subject: | Minutes 000518 Meeting at SRI |
Here are the minutes of the May 18, 2000 OHS/DKR meeting at SRI taken by Howard Liu. Please send all corrections and clarifications to hliu@verticalnet.com.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
VerticalNet
Howard
Howard Liu
hliu@verticalnet.com
HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html;
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
Minutes: May 18, 2000 OHS/DKR Meeting at SRI
Mary Keeler
Featured Speaker
Researcher
University of Washington
Cynthia Waddell,
San Jose City Manager
Dept, law and policy
Paper on Disability, Compliance
Officer for American Disability's Act
Meeting at SourcForge
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
Lee:
Meeting at Intel on May 17, 2000
Doug
Zope Collaboration Email for DKR Project
Lee
Will announce when available to users
John Deneen
John will bring in their ensing agreement for reference
Doug
Adobe
IBM Almaden
Rod
Find nouns and verbs in narrative
Higher level architecture based on Jack and Howard's meeting with Doug
DKR Compliance/Support American Disabilities Act
Cynthia Waddell
GSA
Neil Scott, Stanford, is working on user interfaces for disabled people
John Bozak of W3C is interested
The study of what really is there
Existence and reality
Being and existence
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
Sequence, not hierarchy: tone, types, token
Possibility, actuality, probability
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
Arguments expressed by OHS users are raw data, so will sink to raw data layer
Will bubble up to symbols again
Peirce
Lens distorts and help
Role of logic: Logic is a lens
Aristotle
Jack:
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."
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
Peirce liked triads
The notion of Generation is expressed; one cannot express the generation notion without three: two won=92t 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
appearance: if we don't know what things really are, we can deal only with how things appear---positivist
Lee:
People not deal with what is, but what is reported
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
Doug:
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
If implementation fails, then user can go back to requirements
Lee:
Want the system to do the boring logic, so human can do more interesting things
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