Hey OpenCog,

I've been following your work for a few years now, great effort, and some 
solid justification for your design principles. Keep on truckin' with it :-)

I'm currently working to define my thesis, which is going to focus on 
concept pattern mining, DL and ontology learning, specifically in the AGI 
context.

In particular, I wanted to develop an KR standard for AGI (like OWL2 on 
steroids) which is extensible enough to enable AGI researchers to 
collaborate effectively, plug in learning algorithm or other modules more 
readily, but also enable low-level types/relationships to be defined so 
that economics or probability concepts (for example) can be implemented. I 
still wanted to keep track of the formalisation. (eg. inferences, 
satisfiability, chaining, uniform interpolation etc. all the good stuff we 
get from a formalised KR like OWL, where it applies).

As part of my pre-work I am considering the AtomSpace in detail, due to 
some of its properties. Eg. large-scale KR, query engine, bias towards 
modular/hybrid AGI. But also because any standard would need to meet 
advanced requirements like those found in OpenCog to be an effective 
standard.

I have a couple of questions I was hoping someone could answer to help me 
decide to progress:

Given that you guys have gone through the process of implementing the 
AtomSpace, do you think that such a 'standard AGI KR' would be practical in 
real terms? Or just be a bit too much of monster to define with too steep a 
learning curve for encouraging a new user base?

Also, in many of the AtomSpace-related publications there is frequent 
mention of performance trade-offs and data-persistence dynamics. Do you 
feel that distributed computation and general HPC should be considered as a 
central principle to such a standard KR? eg. in the same way OWL is 
'web-biased' the AGI standard should be 'HPC-biased'.

Given that perspectives on AGI research differ significantly between 
individuals, do you think a KR standard which tries to unify 
viewpoints/requirements would end up being so generalised that you might as 
well just not bother? 

Thanks

Adam Gwizdala 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"opencog" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/5064103e-2eb0-41a1-a9dc-feeec578b962%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to