In order to prevent derailing this thread I am going to start a new thread on the corpus discussion.
AndrewBuck On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 6:47:03 AM UTC-5, Adam Gwizdala wrote: > > 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/38b7a442-b830-4d9a-9fd7-fff1682250ac%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
