Hello Elisa,
Each of your paragraphs are exciting and informative. Indeed you have provided clarity.
There is one perspective in which you have added to my confusion. Just kidding - in a way. I am off to have a look at CTS2 to add yet another dimension of understanding.
I am interested in how I learn - individually and in groups. Not instructional learning, but rather discovery and retention of things discovered to enhance further discovery. On my website (needs a lot of work, http://Aurorae-tech.appspot.com ) I have expressed a couple of things that I want to learn in the green stack of boxes on the right of the page. I am attempting to discover how to create compute machinery to assist my human cognitive processes. Life ebbs and flows. How does one retain knowledge? How can computer machinery be more helpful? A computer is not going to perform the necessary internalization required for humans to learn. Computers are not necessarily going to "spoon feed" me with knowledge, so that when I swallow, I am immediately knowledgeable on my subject of interest. But, certainly compute machines can be far more assistive than the current state-of-the-art.
I am searching for accomplishments and work performed for enabling human knowledge retention and enhancement.
Here is a quick example of where I want my assistive machinery: 1974 got a private pilot license Flew 200 hours (small number) Logbook show last flights in 1983 I joined a flight club June 2013
30 years - what have I retained? What did not exist 30 years ago? There are many disciplines - metrology, cartography, airspace, laws of physics, rules and rules and rules - to name a few. I want the assistive compute machinery to not only assist my retention, but possibly like coach and measure shortcomings of knowledge, maybe some guidance - the machine requires significant cognition of its own to be in any way assistive to the human. Additionally, we don't need to build a separate machine for every subject of interest. But, if the cognitive machine consisted of numerous services that combine to become agents then we can strive towards a machine that can assist from our formative years (kindergarten) to research by groups of scientists.
The anecdote paragraph above is the reason that your paragraphs were exciting. There were tremors in the dense space between my ears. The work of others are useful indeed. If I only had greater cognitive machinery to aid my journeys.
Thanx.
Hi Ray,
In API4KBs, our requirements include a broader range of interfaces
(e.g., enterprise service bus), with targets that may include, but
are not focused on CMS systems. We have been reviewing what they
did, and continue to be informed by it, but concluded that it
didn't cover our use cases. One possible outcome is that we may
suggest extensions to their work to provide a compliant
implementation, if they are open to that, when the time comes.
For example, one of the primary use cases for our work is to
replace some of the underpinnings of the CTS2 2 set of standards
from the OMG with more general purpose interfaces. CTS 2 is
publically available on the OMG site, although I'm not sure if
recent updates have been posted yet. The CTS 2 effort represents
joint work between HL7 and the OMG, and provides terminology
services for healthcare, largely developed at the Mayo Clinic but
with other participants as well. The architecture has been in
place for many years, although the standard has only been
available in the last couple of years from the OMG.
Architectures that are motivating our work include not only CTS 2
and its predecessors, but the Reaction RuleML effort, which has
been well tested with commercial rule systems and other
applications such as analytics, but without any description logics
reasoning in the loop. We have also gone back to the FIPA work,
and especially their ACL language approach, to facilitate looser
coupling, as our goal is to create more of a framework than
tightly coupled interfaces, with specific implementations to
support a couple of key use cases and provide a reference for
others.
I hope this provides a bit more clarity,
Elisa
On 6/29/2013 10:09 AM, Ray Martin wrote:
here are the listed components of Stanbol:
quick list:
From
here is
their list:
Certainly
some of the same wording. Takes a lot of study to
discover the intent and meaning behind the words.
As one
attempts to produce a system, one realizes that one will
be thousands of years old if one produces all components
by one's lonesome. So, one attempts to use ideas and
accomplishments of others - Stanbol, API4KB, etc, etc -
only to discover that because humans cannot work
together, one will be thousands of years old before
knowing what, how, when, and where to utilize the
multitude of efforts. It is indeed very nice that folks
opensource their efforts - but, WOW???
ultra-confusing...
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
|