[topicmaps-comment] on the Manhattan project for the Knowledge Sciences

[paul <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>]

Claude,

You said:

"We don't yet need a Manhattan Project.   We must very quickly and
somewhat loosely couple existing systems to enable better use of
existing assets.   Then and only then should we be looking to
more exotic or emerging systems to strengthen that capability."

***

There is a proposal for a Manhattan type project in knowledge science so
that the nature of the conversation about information technology might be
changed.  We are looking for by-passes.  As you know, sometimes problems are
caused by themselves, and by moving around them they simply disappear.

http://www.ontologystream.com/admin/formationCommunities.htm


The BCNGroup proposal is that, by using more of the biological and social
models of intelligence and behavior, we might step away from some specific
intractable problems that are rooting in the current approach to IT, and are
rooting in what some folks define as being "rational" (example the KMCI
theory of rational knowledge management).

An advance of stratified-theory-based-knowledge-management technology and
methodology might give the world some immediate space around the critical
problems we face in security and trust relationships.  And the SAME advance
(change in the nature of the discussion) might lead to increased
productivity in business ecosystems and in managing the productiveness of
complex processes such as bio-technology.  Remember, that our industries may
soon be called on to de-pollute a 1/5 of the planet after a Nuclear War.

Even if the world's scientists are not called in this way (let us hope), we
still have 100 million people infected with AIDs, and environmental issues
(as discussed in Al Gore's book).  (I think Al Gore ought to run again, and
use the slogan:  "Well, let us try that one again.  And this time, let us
get it right! "  )  We have the economic, political and environmental mess
left over, from the Soviet area, in Russia and FSU.  We also have a moral
crisis with capitalism as seen in the Enron mess.   All of these issues
require knowledge economies.

http://www.ontologystream.com/forums/Acappella/keco.htm


In some cases, we (some of us) are spending a great deal of money on work
that is just not valuable (to anyone).  Creating very large ontologies might
be part of the not useful activity, and a "new" formative approach might
make this effort pay off in an expected way.

The Cy ontology is a good test example of what might be done and what are
the problems with a massive "static" ontology. Lenat has done good work, if
only we could approach this work as a science rather than as a business
proposition, then the "communities" might understand the nature of machine
ontology...  And a community might eventually understand the notion of a
"small formative ontology" that appears from a tri-level architecture using
a large static ontology as a object of inquiry.  I believe that this notion
of formative ontology is already a key component of the lower Cy ontologies.

Small formative ontology is

1) consistent with what the scientists know about memory, awareness and
anticipation
2) has agility and responsiveness to human information interactions

and leads to eventChemistry and categoricalAbstraction.

http://www.ontologystream.com/cA/index.htm


AS WE (THIS COMMUNITY) IS LEARNING ABOUT THE NEW APPROACH, then the BCNGroup
proposes that most of the resulting IP can be captured in the form of
co-referenced Patent disclosures (accompanied at the same time by real
public disclosure) , and thus that the community might "own" the E-Knowledge
business ecosystem.  My work with CoreTalk (Sandy Klausner) is directed at
setting up this possibility by using the CoreTalk CoreIQ Memory Management
Engine and Operating System as a common framework (a Knowledge Operating
System) for rendering knowledge technology innovations as binaries.

We are looking for a partner like SUN or IBM, but on our terms - not theirs.
So we have to get the patents filed.  A grass roots membership is developing
at BCNGroup

www.bcngroup.org

and this is lending creditability to the Manhattan Project concept.

E-business work on ontologies is productive, but what about data mining and
data warehouses?  Do we have a problem with treating profiles of people
places and things as if these profiles are "correct" when actually not only
are they NOT correct, but they are shallow in a systemic fashion (the
Autonomy profiles (DREs) for example)

Stratified complexity required more that a single workshop.

So all we ask is that someone somewhere start to work on something that will
replace those approaches that are shown to be limited.  You agree, I assume?



You said (well):

"
To repeat a saying from olden AI days, the principle of rationality
is a weak predictor of human behavior.  Yet it is the over reliance
of depending on a common definition of "rational" that is weak.  To
the terrorist who developed in a refugee camp, a world view of
western domination and corruption, the act of flying an airliner
into a building is rational.  It represents an exchange of value
for effect; life for notification.   While of interest to delve
into the deeper meaning of that notification, this will not prevent
the act itself.  To do this, the individuals with that definition
of rationality, with the means to act, and the acts that prepare
for an act must be identified.   The concept that regardless of
the internal motivation, the pattern of behaviors that precede
an act of a declared type is the working definition of emergence
is the behaviorist view.   This view is sufficient to enable
public safety systems to work in concert to defend against such
acts.  "

I repeat:

"While of interest to delve
into the deeper meaning of that notification, this will not prevent
the act itself."

and I question this directly.

The concerns of the terrorist ARE the causes of the terrorism.  Period.  To
understand and to eliminate the concerns of the terrorist will reduce to
close to zero the motivation for terrorism.  Yes?  One will always have
random acts of violence, but one emergence will bring a atomic bomb into New
York city and ignite this.

One way to do this is to kill all of the terrorist.  The other way is to
look deep into our social practices and see that in some cases the concerns
are about how we have treated other cultures.

How can one mark-up the scenarios that lead to the negotiation between
cultures (and viewpoints)?

Is this the purpose of the Human Mark - up standard?