The same tar-filled brush that swiped AI will get KM too, becaue again the (hype+bs)/value ratio is very high. In fact the small pieces of KM that are worthwhile are based on a variety of techniques: mostly statistical natural language processing (This is not a mainstream part of linguistics for many years, because it does not pay any attention to even grammar. Rather it is IR (information retrieval) informed by AI, statistic, data mining, etc.
Teh part of KM that is most like AI has the same probelms of it doesn't scale in size, knwoledge from one "domain" doesn't transfer easily to another domain, etc. The benefit of the AI namespace is that people will think to look there. No one who is not alreadyu aware of the acronym KM would look there. I too prefer to avoid acronyms except those that are already deeply entrenched in the culture -- AI is one such. Hopefully helpfully yours, Steve -- Steven Tolkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] 617-563-0516 Fidelity Investments 82 Devonshire St. V8D Boston MA 02109 There is nothing so practical as a good theory. Comments are by me, not Fidelity Investments, its subsidiaries or affiliates. > -----Original Message----- > From: John Douglas Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 12:39 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: An ML:: namespace? > > > Matt Youell wrote: > > AI::Categorize. Tasks like categorization, taxonomy, etc. > seem to be less > > "AI" and more Knowledge Management (KM). > > I dunno. That really depends on what you define as AI. > Traditionally, the AI net is cast broadly enough to cover > those things. > > > > Knowledge Management is an existing > > term that's common in Fortune 500 settings (vs. academia), > and there are > > many active products exploring that market right now. It's > a common enough > > term to be recognized, still broad, > > And this touches on the heart of the problem, as I've described in > another email. It's not that "AI" carries a lot of > baggage... So what? > It's that the category is just TOO broad! > > > > I actually like "ML::", except for the fact that it would no doubt > have other meanings to other people. > (Someone said there is no precedent for top-level names for > other languages. In fact, there is "C::", but admittedly > that's a special case.) > > > And I'm thinking that acronyms are probably suboptimal, in general. > > -- > John Douglas Porter > > >
