RE: [unrev-II] Knowledge Representation

From: Gil Regev (gil.regev@epfl.ch)
Date: Fri Jul 21 2000 - 02:46:23 PDT

  • Next message: Lee Iverson: "[unrev-II] Patents and licenses"

    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