D'A'I'

1
D.A.I. S.M. for KMa synergy of complementary
domains and challenges

• ? the semantic web addicted people
• please, raise your hands !

2

• Profiles and interests of participants ?
• knowledge manager, machine learning and
  dynamic construction of knowledge, web-services
  and DAMLS, e-mail and SW for KM, information
  retrieval, constraints, standard upper
  ontologies, corporate memories, linguist,
  semantic intraweb, peer two peer for KM, ontology
  for processes and interaction protocols, etc.

3

• What is new in the semantic web ?
• Other K.R. languages existed before but none of
  them made it to the real world some part also
  matured (ontology)
• SW is a real-world application (the Web) for K.R.
• the SW is also about standardization and
  diffusion effort for semantic representation on
  the Web.
• What is new in the agents ?
• High level programming and design paradigm that
  reduces conceptual gap between description of our
  reality (problems and envisioned solutions) and
  the description used in the modeling and
  implementation framework.
• Why Agents SW interesting in KM?
• Distributed A.I. offers a paradigm and
  architectures to deploy and map over distributed
  knowledge spaces
• Virtual organizations can reflect, and integrate
  with human organizations

4

• Why do we think there exists such a thing as an
  ontology?
• The use of abstract categories shows up in a lot
  of work
• XML is not enough, the machine does not
  understandltcar /gt any more than car need for
  ontologies and SW
• True both for the open Web and for the intrawebs
• Even if the human brain representation is
  completely different of the ones (D)AI is using,
  if our symbolic systems can simulate the
  inferences we want using ontologies then why not
  use them?
• Ontology problem the heart of SW and symbolic
  DAI
• Contrary to previous attempts, the ontology
  object and its problematics are recognized and
  being addressed.
• There is an effort in trying to build standard
  top ontologies (SUMO), and domain ontologies that
  can be reused and extended by organizations.
• No imposed standards, make them available and
  show benefits to everyone otherwise it will
  not happen

5

• Importance of the content of ontologies and SW?
• Semantic content or statistic content?
• A lot of low-quality ontologies on the Web but
  they will disappear with time / hope they wont
  harm the domain
• The linguistic / semiotic level is too often
  mixed-up with the conceptual structures and
  representation themselves need for separation
  and development of this level.
• Problem of pragmatic use of terms / signs and
  interpretation not really addressed
• Content and semantic are largely underestimated,
  tools and methods are too much emphasized
• You have to go through a period of chaos before
  you reach a stable situation
• Transition period going to double web before
  going where everything is in the markup.
• SW initiatives also provide rules, constraints on
  how it should be done i.e. it is more than a
  simple syntactic sugar

6

• Can large, standard ontologies exist?
• Build small but viral Tim Burners-Lee
• 80/20 rule for disseminationLet the demand for
  the rest come after
• Choose the right domain to build and demonstrate
  ontologies (e.g., services, processes,
  interaction protocols)
• Then tend toward a maximum of expressiveness and
  overlap with other existing ontologies
• Top ontologies and standard domain ontologies are
  vital to foster this convergence and make the
  compatibility possible.
• Extensible models are important because they give
  room for further extensions
• Layers? The semantic web cake.
• Components? But too much anarchy would be
  dangerous.
• Top ontology (essential) hierarchies of
  extensions and management of overlaps between
  extension
• Semi-automatic mapping for relevant parts

7

• Is there a killer-application for the SW?
• Exact answer to my query? Improving search
  mechanisms?
• Mechanisms to reduce number of answer?And what
  if there really are 1,000,000,000,000,000
  answers
• Real improvements? Not ambiguity.
• Only as good as the expressivity of the ontology.
• Need more weighting / fuzzy ? No, just sub-type
  of Ont. K.
• Pornography ?
• Hmm let say Multimedia
• May be look at trust, quality and security
• Use formal knowledge to evaluate some quality
  (e.g., coherence) and security (e.g. access
  policies)
• Use for filtering and ranking
• Some solution of K.M. (e.g., peer review, trust
  authorities and (acquaintance) networks)

8

• AMKM and SW
• Large organizations with intranet interesting
  special case
• Intraweb application are a good domain of
  application (information systems and workflow)
• Problem of burden, separation of concerns in the
  company (worker vs. K Manager)
• SW get KM outside the organization helps link
  with open web and link with other organizations.
• Virtual enterprises
• Company merging
• Designing shared common ontology
• Corporate internal ontologies
• Top ontology ex SUMO then extension with domain
  ontologies
• Ontological work in the agent field can bring
  works on speech acts and interaction protocols
  (FIPA, KQML) to SW and KM

9

• Complexity of ontologies
• Too complex to be shown to a user
• No reason to show it to a user
• Interfaces are a very important problem
• Forms are not usable for every interactions
• More intelligent interfaces using semiotic levels
• We focus, and interfaces should focus with us
• Pragmatic aspects of language in interfaces
• Who is going to give us this semantic that the SW
  wants to make available?
• Some of it manually (e.g. building an ontology)
• Some of it from (semi-)automatic process
• Pragmatic aspect of the interpretation of the
  content of the Web

10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)