SUO: RE: Architectures for Intelligent Systems
In response to your question:
> What is the main difference between this "blackboard" and knowledge-based
> Web brokers such as the CG-based AI-trader (see the proceedings of ICCS'95
or
> http://www.vsb.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de/projects/aitrader/intro.html),
> the OKBC-based or KQML-based brokers described on the Ontolingua site,
> or the prototype for distributed KBs discussed on the CYC site
> (http://www.cyc.com/applications.html#dai) ?
The fundamental difference is based on understanding two engineering
concepts:
1) Decoupling
2) Abstraction
Decoupling refers to using things like pointers --- it is a layer of
indirection that permits different things to find each other through a
common agreed means of communication. That is what CORBA is all about.
Abstraction refers to using terms that are conceptually meaningful and that
must also be decoupled from the lower layer by which two things can can
communicate.
Combining those two ideas we can see the evolution to things like XML which
is an engineering product that permits us to work at an "abstract" abstract
level - the XML grammar is a meta-level from which we create the
abstractions (vocabularies and semantics and logics) by which we can deal
with the progressively lower layers.
This is also a fundamental principle of Obeject-Oriented methods (interface
and abstractions).
So, there is a HUGE difference in using the blackboard, the FMF and such as
proposed by John Sowa than relegating ourselves back down to the CORBA
sphagetti (oh, by the way, which *version* of CORBA on which Operating
System were you referrin to ???) ... I think I may have made my point, but,
I am happy to explain further as needs be.
I think this is a particularly fruitful area of discussion and thought.
Cheers,
Arun Majumdar
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-cg@cs.uah.edu [mailto:owner-cg@cs.uah.edu]On Behalf Of
Jean-Luc Delatre
Sent: April 10, 2002 2:03 AM
To: cg@cs.uah.edu
Cc: phmartin@meganesia.int.gu.edu.au; Stand Up Ontology; John F. Sowa
Subject: CG: Architectures for Intelligent Systems
Answering a message from John Sowa:
http://mars.virtual-earth.de/pipermail/cg/2002q2/000000.html
Philippe Martin wrote :
>
> > A blackboard is an ideal platform for supporting hot-swap or plug-n-play
> > components. When a new component is added to the FMF, it would send
> > a message to the blackboard to identify itself and the patterns of
> > messages it accepts. ...
> > Any server anywhere on the Internet could be converted to an intelligent
> > agent by using an FMF as its front end. ...
>
> What is the main difference between this "blackboard" and knowledge-based
> Web brokers such as the CG-based AI-trader (see the proceedings of ICCS'95
or
> http://www.vsb.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de/projects/aitrader/intro.html),
> the OKBC-based or KQML-based brokers described on the Ontolingua site,
> or the prototype for distributed KBs discussed on the CYC site
> (http://www.cyc.com/applications.html#dai) ?
>
> Knowledge-based Web brokers are ontology/KB servers which, when necessary,
> redirect queries to others ontology/KB/DB servers. Integrating the results
> is an unsolved (and in my opinion unsolvable) problem if the ontologies of
> the various systems are not tightly interconnected.
"tightly interconnected", yes of course, but what does this means?
It does NOT has to mean that each one has to recode ALL the knowledge
from others in order to meaningfully exchange information.
I have been arguing vehemently since Fri 22 Mar 2002 that *incrementality*
should be considered for ontologies interoperability:
http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg08138.html
I got some critiscisms and nit-picking:
mumble, mumble, not gonna be easy:
"can't think offhand how one might implement such a system"
don't ask me to think:
"it is too technical for seweb which is more meant for
general annoucements."
you don't know what you are talking about:
"You might also consult the definition of 'higher-order'
in some standard logic text."
we have no interest beside our (strictly defined) turf:
"It would be better to have a silent list (with hope for
future progress) than an off-topic list"
Etc...
But NO ONE made any comment pro or con *incrementality* per se!
> However, if each (general
> or specialized) KB server mirrors the content of its competitors (manually
> at first, then more and more automatically), the competing servers
> will end up with comparable ontologies/knowledge, and then the processes
of
> redirecting queries and integrating results are simpler. Actually,
> if each server manages to include/mirror the knowledge of its competitors,
> the need for a broker is quite reduced: all competing servers will answer
> similarly. That would also be more efficient: large ontologies/KB can be
> handled efficiently but can an application exploiting many distributed KB
> servers be efficient?
Certainly not if this amount to a bulk replication of *all* participating
ontologies!
> I assume that most ontology/KB servers (e.g. WebKB-2, Ontolingua,
Ontosausus,
> Ontobroker) could easily include a (very) simple broker, if this is
required.
Simplicity of the broker is a well desirable property but scalability
over a very large distributed set of knowledge repositories might
dictate otherwise.
But this is *not* necessarily unavoidable.
What if the broker could be both simple and scalable?
It's all in the design and incrementality might do it!
Anyone to REALLY comment on that?
Rather than on appropriateness in the form of the question or
the subject matter or my credentials, etc...
Cheers.
-- Jean-Luc Delatre
--------------------------------------------------------------
"There is no more common error than to assume that, because
prolonged and accurate mathematical calculations have been
made, the application of the result to some fact of nature
is absolutely certain." - A. N. Whitehead
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://perso.club-internet.fr/jld/ -- GSM: +33 6 11 24 06 29
========================================================================
To post a message, send mail to cg@cs.uah.edu.
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@cs.uah.edu with the command
'unsubscribe cg' in the message body.
See http://www.virtual-earth.de/CG/cg-list/ for the mailing list archive
See http://www.cs.uah.edu/~delugach/CG for the Conceptual Graph Home Page
For help or administrative assistance, mail to owner-cg@cs.uah.edu