Home > Archive > Prolog > July 2004 > Re: research topics
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: research topics
|
|
| Eray Ozkural exa 2004-06-27, 8:56 am |
| "Algernon" <algernon@dmv.com> wrote in message news:<10dm8547d9m8ja6@corp.supernews.com>...
> I will be studying for my PhD starting this fall. The program stresses
> research. I have been trying to think of some areas and topics but am coming
> up blank. Does anybody have any ideas for some research topics; AI in
> general and Prolog in particular? And what are some periodicals,
> institutions that publish research papers.
There are several research groups that use logical methods. Here is an
interesting research group using action languages and answer sets for
reasoning, at UTA:
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/vl/tag/
I think you would also be interested in knowledge representation,
perhaps as applied to Semantic Web; that's about the only big area I
can think of where people want to deploy those big ontologies. (Half
seriously, of course, computational ontology is now a basic tool in
scientific computing) I can't tell how much AI Semantic Web really is,
though.
There is an advanced language that fuses logical and functional
languages, it's called mercury. Perhaps you would be interested in
semantics of new generation logic programming languages? There is much
to do in that area, our PLs are nowhere near perfect.
An ex-faculty of bilkent CS faculty, Pierre Flener, was interested in
automatic logic programming. Conceptually, that is *very* close to AI.
If you have a powerful automatic programmer, think of the AI problems
you can solve!
I came across one of his articles at a relevant AAAI report:
http://www.aaai.org/Press/Reports/Symposia/Spring/ss-02-05.html
I think the report would be a nice reading for a PhD candidate
interested in AI applications of Logic.
Cheers,
--
Eray Ozkural
| |
|
| Eray Ozkural exa wrote:
> I think you would also be interested in knowledge representation,
> perhaps as applied to Semantic Web; that's about the only big area I
> can think of where people want to deploy those big ontologies. (Half
> seriously, of course, computational ontology is now a basic tool in
> scientific computing) I can't tell how much AI Semantic Web really is,
> though.
>
Yeah there is a lot of logic programming going on now with the Semantic
Web - see Tim Berners Lee's CWM [1]. One need is fuzzy matching of RDF
Bnodes (unidentified descriptions) ... i think that is an area that is
ripe for AI ideas ... and there could be very tangible benefits to
getting it right.
[1] <http://infomesh.net/2001/cwm/>
patty
| |
| Eray Ozkural exa 2004-06-28, 4:10 pm |
| patty <pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> wrote in message news:<%cyDc.103831$Hg2.64452@attbi_s04>...
> Eray Ozkural exa wrote:
>
>
> Yeah there is a lot of logic programming going on now with the Semantic
> Web - see Tim Berners Lee's CWM [1]. One need is fuzzy matching of RDF
> Bnodes (unidentified descriptions) ... i think that is an area that is
> ripe for AI ideas ... and there could be very tangible benefits to
> getting it right.
>
> [1] <http://infomesh.net/2001/cwm/>
Ouch. Python! All that XML junk, it's gonna be slow....
| |
|
| Eray Ozkural exa wrote:
> patty <pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> wrote in message news:<%cyDc.103831$Hg2.64452@attbi_s04>...
>
>
>
> Ouch. Python! All that XML junk, it's gonna be slow....
Yeah it's slow, but not because of python or all that XML junk. It's a
demonstration of something (mostly the utility of the N3 language and
making inferences) and were Tim to figure out what it should be doing,
it could well be speeded up. It *is* (well probably was) a fast way to
demonstrate and play with some concepts ... to see if they could be made
to work. I cited it here only as an instance of logic programming
happening on the Semantic Web. There are other, perhaps more practical,
examples, but those are not nearly as accessible.
The basic question, as i see it, is how do you even do reasoning with
the monotonic binary logic of OWL and RDF in the wild west of the
democratized web. Are there useful inferences to be computed? If so
where are the tools to get the job done?
patty
| |
| Ted Warring 2004-06-29, 8:57 am |
| My opinion (for what it is worth) would be that there is far too much
noise to trust any inferred "knowledge" from the web.
Based upon my experience working with the Open Mind Commonsense
Database, which is structured, even if loosely, I think a trusted
source approach would be the only hope of valid results. The OM data
is full of a whole lot of garbage in addition to the valid attempts by
web donors, interspersed by probably well intended but nonetheless
violations of the structure.
Majority weighting could of course be applied, but I suspect any such
attempt would be subverted in similar fashion to the Google rating
games played by slashdotters.
Perhaps the best approach would be starting with trusted source sites
being granted exceptional weighting, followed by a majority weighted
skeptical review of unrated sources.
The editorial and review process in the Wiki world might be a good
indication of why majority review is needed in the web jungle...
Regards,
Ted Warring
patty <pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> wrote in message news:<ZMWDc.122273$eu.2393@attbi_s02>...
> Eray Ozkural exa wrote:
>
> Yeah it's slow, but not because of python or all that XML junk. It's a
> demonstration of something (mostly the utility of the N3 language and
> making inferences) and were Tim to figure out what it should be doing,
> it could well be speeded up. It *is* (well probably was) a fast way to
> demonstrate and play with some concepts ... to see if they could be made
> to work. I cited it here only as an instance of logic programming
> happening on the Semantic Web. There are other, perhaps more practical,
> examples, but those are not nearly as accessible.
>
> The basic question, as i see it, is how do you even do reasoning with
> the monotonic binary logic of OWL and RDF in the wild west of the
> democratized web. Are there useful inferences to be computed? If so
> where are the tools to get the job done?
>
> patty
| |
| Eray Ozkural exa 2004-06-29, 8:57 am |
| patty <pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> wrote in message news:<ZMWDc.122273$eu.2393@attbi_s02>...
> Eray Ozkural exa wrote:
>
> Yeah it's slow, but not because of python or all that XML junk. It's a
> demonstration of something (mostly the utility of the N3 language and
> making inferences) and were Tim to figure out what it should be doing,
> it could well be speeded up. It *is* (well probably was) a fast way to
> demonstrate and play with some concepts ... to see if they could be made
> to work. I cited it here only as an instance of logic programming
> happening on the Semantic Web. There are other, perhaps more practical,
> examples, but those are not nearly as accessible.
I understand that it's a demonstration. I like Python as a scripting
language, and I think it's truly much better than visual basic,
tcl/tk, or perl. It has functional constructs, high level data
structures, etc. And its libraries I can only applaud; it's a
beautiful programming environment. Actually, I recommend python to
those just beginning to program, I think it's a balanced language.
However, I heard that for big projects it doesn't have a shining
performance... That was the gist of my remark. Likewise for XML. Even
in the fastest C++ processors, XML causes a lot of overhead. In KDE
project, XML UI framework shares a big part of the guilt in
application startup time.
> The basic question, as i see it, is how do you even do reasoning with
> the monotonic binary logic of OWL and RDF in the wild west of the
> democratized web. Are there useful inferences to be computed? If so
> where are the tools to get the job done?
My idea is that, humans are not likely to use Semantic Web tools at
all. I imagine that first we write some agents that compute the
semantics and then perhaps some useful inferences can be drawn... I
think that the "semantics" is not really contained in these ontology
languages, you need a programming language, not just some forward
chaining code.
Regards,
--
Eray Ozkural
| |
|
| Eray Ozkural exa wrote:
> patty <pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> wrote in message news:<ZMWDc.122273$eu.2393@attbi_s02>...
>
>
>
> I understand that it's a demonstration. I like Python as a scripting
> language, and I think it's truly much better than visual basic,
> tcl/tk, or perl. It has functional constructs, high level data
> structures, etc. And its libraries I can only applaud; it's a
> beautiful programming environment. Actually, I recommend python to
> those just beginning to program, I think it's a balanced language.
> However, I heard that for big projects it doesn't have a shining
> performance... That was the gist of my remark. Likewise for XML. Even
> in the fastest C++ processors, XML causes a lot of overhead. In KDE
> project, XML UI framework shares a big part of the guilt in
> application startup time.
>
Well i would not disagree with most of that. Strangely enough Tim's CWM
was a rebellion against XML giving us the streamlined N3 language. But
one wonders, as did Pat Hayes, why one does not just use KIF.
Incidentally the Semantic Web does not rest on XML, it rests on triples.
You can, if you are bold enough, use whatever surface language you want.
>
>
>
> My idea is that, humans are not likely to use Semantic Web tools at
> all. I imagine that first we write some agents that compute the
> semantics and then perhaps some useful inferences can be drawn... I
> think that the "semantics" is not really contained in these ontology
> languages, you need a programming language, not just some forward
> chaining code.
>
Well the semantics of a language are outside of the language. The
semantics is manifested by the game of the usage of the language. I
would think that would apply to programming languages as well.
Where it comes to the semantic web, i've always felt that the graph
*was* the semantics but apparently that idea didn't get legs in the W3C
working group. When you say "some agents that compute the semantics",
if the semantics are the graph, than that works because certainly an
agent can compute the graph. So i will go out on a limb and say "if the
semantic web works, it will be because the semantics are the graph",
Pat's lengthy tomb notwithstanding. Of course the trouble with that is
the graph is *not* supposed to be context sensitive - that is because of
its grounding in URIs which are not supposed to be context sensitive ...
.... look don't get me started ... ok .. ok ...
patty
| |
|
| Ted Warring wrote:
> My opinion (for what it is worth) would be that there is far too much
> noise to trust any inferred "knowledge" from the web.
>
> Based upon my experience working with the Open Mind Commonsense
> Database, which is structured, even if loosely, I think a trusted
> source approach would be the only hope of valid results. The OM data
> is full of a whole lot of garbage in addition to the valid attempts by
> web donors, interspersed by probably well intended but nonetheless
> violations of the structure.
>
Yeah some of my own flakiness is perhaps still in OM. Did anyone ever
do anything useful with the data base ?
> Majority weighting could of course be applied, but I suspect any such
> attempt would be subverted in similar fashion to the Google rating
> games played by slashdotters.
>
> Perhaps the best approach would be starting with trusted source sites
> being granted exceptional weighting, followed by a majority weighted
> skeptical review of unrated sources.
>
> The editorial and review process in the Wiki world might be a good
> indication of why majority review is needed in the web jungle...
>
Well yes we really do need to get that web of trust going ... err ... or
... I'm thinking that a more biological approach might be called for.
I mean spam and viruses may just be the stimulus we need to get a
working system going. Think about it .. for every virus there is an
antibody.
just a thought ....
patty
[color=darkred]
> Regards,
>
> Ted Warring
>
>
> patty <pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> wrote in message news:<ZMWDc.122273$eu.2393@attbi_s02>...
>
| |
| Eray Ozkural exa 2004-06-29, 8:57 pm |
| patty <pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> wrote in message news:<yEgEc.135978$Sw.40005@attbi_s51>...
>
> Well the semantics of a language are outside of the language. The
> semantics is manifested by the game of the usage of the language. I
> would think that would apply to programming languages as well.
To be accurate, that's called pragmatics, and no semantics of a
programming language is defined by the designer...
> Where it comes to the semantic web, i've always felt that the graph
> *was* the semantics but apparently that idea didn't get legs in the W3C
> working group. When you say "some agents that compute the semantics",
> if the semantics are the graph, than that works because certainly an
> agent can compute the graph. So i will go out on a limb and say "if the
> semantic web works, it will be because the semantics are the graph",
> Pat's lengthy tomb notwithstanding. Of course the trouble with that is
> the graph is *not* supposed to be context sensitive - that is because of
> its grounding in URIs which are not supposed to be context sensitive ...
I don't mean merging of the ontologies or the link graphs. Those are
easy to compute. I mean a web agent browsing the web, understanding
the stuff, and building meta-data appropriately (and selectively)...
I think those ontologies could work for specific domains like genetics
research, because their stuff has to be formal... They have a project
here with all the graphical ontology editors and what not. But I think
a political text or an artists' hang out is not like that...
It invokes a silly feel in me. It's like UML, mostly a burden on those
who need it least. Again, why on earth should a web page author be
concerned with a silly meta-data language at all?
> ... look don't get me started ... ok .. ok ...
Cheers,
--
Eray
| |
| Ted Warring 2004-06-29, 8:57 pm |
| They have created a more structured version of the data that they
describe as a semantic network of over 250,000 elements. It is in
practice a collection of predicates such as: ComesBefore(Eating, wash
your hands).
I had tied our NLP system to the original OM database in text form
with a structured index, and subsequent to OMCSNet (what they call the
collection of predicates) implemented a structured group of
collections based upon it in our system. The implementation with
OMCSNet was much better than the original, which had a tendency to
talk about sex in the crudest of terms in relation to just about every
noun and verb imaginable.
I don't want to be derogatory because I respect their effort, but I am
less than impressed by the competency of the "concept network"
described by the 250,000+ predicates. The value will go up
substantially with better editing (in my opinion) and when they have
many more predicates.
Here is an example of our NLP system with the OM predicates in use:
[user]: what is a horse?
[Proteus]: horse is a large mammmal
[user]: how big is a horse?
[Proteus]: horse can be use to race
[user]: yes, but how large is a horse?
[Proteus]: horse are for be found run wild
[user]: where would a horse live?
[Proteus]: horse can rest in barn
[user]: what is the speed of a horse?
[Proteus]: horse are for pull wagon
That is ok by the standards of a chatbot, but as you can tell there is
no predicate in the system relating to the speed or size of a horse.
The structure further doesn't lend itself well to inference because
the predicates are very loosely structured and are not always correct
syntactically or semantically.
There is also some poor content:
[user]: Who is steve?
[Proteus]: steve do eat cookie
[user]: why does steve eat a cookie?
[Proteus]: cookie can be eaten
[user]: But what about Steve?
[Proteus]: steve are for want sex
Then again, this might be one of the true predicates.... :-p
> Well yes we really do need to get that web of trust going ... err ... or
> ... I'm thinking that a more biological approach might be called for.
> I mean spam and viruses may just be the stimulus we need to get a
> working system going. Think about it .. for every virus there is an
> antibody.
Interesting train of thought... Would you care to expand upon it?
Regards,
Ted Warring
patty <pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> wrote in message news:<u9hEc.132956$0y.114824@attbi_s03>...[color=darkred]
> Ted Warring wrote:
>
> Yeah some of my own flakiness is perhaps still in OM. Did anyone ever
> do anything useful with the data base ?
>
>
>
> Well yes we really do need to get that web of trust going ... err ... or
> ... I'm thinking that a more biological approach might be called for.
> I mean spam and viruses may just be the stimulus we need to get a
> working system going. Think about it .. for every virus there is an
> antibody.
>
> just a thought ....
>
> patty
>
>
>
| |
| Ted Warring 2004-06-29, 8:57 pm |
| Sorry if this double-posts, Google took an error the first attempt.
They have created a more structured version of the data that they
describe as a semantic network of over 250,000 elements. It is in
practice a collection of predicates such as: ComesBefore(Eating, wash
your hands).
I had tied our NLP system to the original OM database in text form
with a structured index, and subsequent to OMCSNet (what they call the
collection of predicates) implemented a structured group of
collections based upon it in our system. The implementation with
OMCSNet was much better than the original, which had a tendency to
talk about sex in the crudest of terms in relation to just about every
noun and verb imaginable.
I don't want to be derogatory because I respect their effort, but I am
less than impressed by the competency of the "concept network"
described by the 250,000+ predicates. The value will go up
substantially with better editing (in my opinion) and when they have
many more predicates.
Here is an example of our NLP system with the OM predicates in use:
[user]: what is a horse?
[Proteus]: horse is a large mammmal
[user]: how big is a horse?
[Proteus]: horse can be use to race
[user]: yes, but how large is a horse?
[Proteus]: horse are for be found run wild
[user]: where would a horse live?
[Proteus]: horse can rest in barn
[user]: what is the speed of a horse?
[Proteus]: horse are for pull wagon
That is ok by the standards of a chatbot, but as you can tell there is
no predicate in the system relating to the speed or size of a horse.
The structure further doesn't lend itself well to inference because
the predicates are very loosely structured and are not always correct
syntactically or semantically.
There is also some poor content:
[user]: Who is steve?
[Proteus]: steve do eat cookie
[user]: why does steve eat a cookie?
[Proteus]: cookie can be eaten
[user]: But what about Steve?
[Proteus]: steve are for want sex
Then again, this might be one of the true predicates.... :-p
> Well yes we really do need to get that web of trust going ... err ... or
> ... I'm thinking that a more biological approach might be called for.
> I mean spam and viruses may just be the stimulus we need to get a
> working system going. Think about it .. for every virus there is an
> antibody.
Interesting train of thought... Would you care to expand upon it?
Regards,
Ted Warring
patty <pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> wrote in message news:<u9hEc.132956$0y.114824@attbi_s03>...[color=darkred]
> Ted Warring wrote:
>
> Yeah some of my own flakiness is perhaps still in OM. Did anyone ever
> do anything useful with the data base ?
>
>
>
> Well yes we really do need to get that web of trust going ... err ... or
> ... I'm thinking that a more biological approach might be called for.
> I mean spam and viruses may just be the stimulus we need to get a
> working system going. Think about it .. for every virus there is an
> antibody.
>
> just a thought ....
>
> patty
>
>
>
| |
| JXStern 2004-06-30, 4:01 am |
| On 29 Jun 2004 16:18:03 -0700, erayo@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural
exa) wrote:
Er, "tome"?
[color=darkred]
>It invokes a silly feel in me. It's like UML, mostly a burden on those
>who need it least. Again, why on earth should a web page author be
>concerned with a silly meta-data language at all?
A couple of points. First, that a browser with ontology is free to
"ontologically" browse the raw page text without consideration of
explicit metadata on that page. Second, even old-style web pages have
various keyword metadata fields. Third, old-style or semantic-style,
various levels and flavors of explicit metadata supply another degree
of freedom, which can always seem to bring advantages in some cases,
but always at some cost in redundancy, increased effort, issues of
standard versus clashing ontologies, much less multiple
interpretations, etc.
Bottom line, I agree that the hand-coding of semantic data into the
text of a page is probably an ill-advised strategy. Just include
whatever magic keywords you want to use in the text itself, or in
visible headers, annotations, etc. Keep the smarts in the reader, not
the text. Learn how to write good. Er, well. That is, better.
J.
| |
|
| Ted Warring wrote:
> Sorry if this double-posts, Google took an error the first attempt.
>
> They have created a more structured version of the data that they
> describe as a semantic network of over 250,000 elements. It is in
> practice a collection of predicates such as: ComesBefore(Eating, wash
> your hands).
>
> I had tied our NLP system to the original OM database in text form
> with a structured index, and subsequent to OMCSNet (what they call the
> collection of predicates) implemented a structured group of
> collections based upon it in our system. The implementation with
> OMCSNet was much better than the original, which had a tendency to
> talk about sex in the crudest of terms in relation to just about every
> noun and verb imaginable.
>
Oh i hope that wasn't my fault :(
> I don't want to be derogatory because I respect their effort, but I am
> less than impressed by the competency of the "concept network"
> described by the 250,000+ predicates. The value will go up
> substantially with better editing (in my opinion) and when they have
> many more predicates.
>
> Here is an example of our NLP system with the OM predicates in use:
>
> [user]: what is a horse?
> [Proteus]: horse is a large mammmal
> [user]: how big is a horse?
> [Proteus]: horse can be use to race
> [user]: yes, but how large is a horse?
> [Proteus]: horse are for be found run wild
> [user]: where would a horse live?
> [Proteus]: horse can rest in barn
> [user]: what is the speed of a horse?
> [Proteus]: horse are for pull wagon
>
> That is ok by the standards of a chatbot, but as you can tell there is
> no predicate in the system relating to the speed or size of a horse.
> The structure further doesn't lend itself well to inference because
> the predicates are very loosely structured and are not always correct
> syntactically or semantically.
>
> There is also some poor content:
>
> [user]: Who is steve?
> [Proteus]: steve do eat cookie
> [user]: why does steve eat a cookie?
> [Proteus]: cookie can be eaten
> [user]: But what about Steve?
> [Proteus]: steve are for want sex
>
> Then again, this might be one of the true predicates.... :-p
>
So in short it would work just as good as CyC, if only people would just
put in good data ?
>
>
>
> Interesting train of thought... Would you care to expand upon it?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ted Warring
>
Well the basic idea is to get information to function like biological
molecules do. Make a information molecule and send it out into the
soup. In the soup it fits to some other information molecules because
they are designed to do just that. Once the molecules join together
they perform some action - usually to rout themselves back to where they
came from. This would be very much like how a drug affects specific
functions in the body by sticking to particular binding sites.
patty
| |
| Ted Warring 2004-06-30, 9:00 pm |
| patty <pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> wrote in message news:<jtDEc.5531$Oq2.5514@attbi_s52>...
> Ted Warring wrote:
>
> Oh i hope that wasn't my fault :(
I thought I would investigate your influence on the OM knowledge
base...
And here are the results:
[user]: who is patty?
[Proteus]: patty are for have to contact owner of wallet
[user]: what is patty?
[Proteus]: patty is a honest person
[user]: is patty honest?
[Proteus]: patty do have to contact owner of wallet
[user]: did patty steal the wallet?
[Proteus]: patty do write herself note
[user]: what else does patty do?
[Proteus]: patty are for return wallet to person on id card
[user]: what else does patty do?
[Proteus]: patty are for want to eat salad
[user]: why did patty steal the wallet?
[Proteus]: patty are for saw wallet lie on ground
[user]: patty did not steal the wallet then?
[Proteus]: patty do may not have return of money
[user]: what does patty do?
[Proteus]: patty do saw wallet lie on ground
[user]: what else does patty do?
[Proteus]: patty are for write herself note
Not quite as risque as might have been implied from your comment..
:-p
>
> So in short it would work just as good as CyC, if only people would just
> put in good data ?
>
Well... I say "yes", but would add the caveat that the entry system
should be improved substantially. A good spell checker at least.
Even better some immediate parsing to validate the user input,
allowing them to try again if they messed up.
I think they could go a long way with a conversational system, as that
it would be more likely to extract more complete information about a
specific subject.
But that still depends upon people not filling the system with
perverse nonsense.
>
> Well the basic idea is to get information to function like biological
> molecules do. Make a information molecule and send it out into the
> soup. In the soup it fits to some other information molecules because
> they are designed to do just that. Once the molecules join together
> they perform some action - usually to rout themselves back to where they
> came from. This would be very much like how a drug affects specific
> functions in the body by sticking to particular binding sites.
>
Hmmm... Self-organizing information particles? That is intriguing.
Perhaps you could even go so far as to model them upon single-cell
organisms instead, for a more dynamic system.
Regards,
Ted Warring
| |
|
| Ted Warring wrote:
> patty <pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> wrote in message news:<jtDEc.5531$Oq2.5514@attbi_s52>...
>
>
>
> I thought I would investigate your influence on the OM knowledge
> base...
>
> And here are the results:
>
> [user]: who is patty?
> [Proteus]: patty are for have to contact owner of wallet
> [user]: what is patty?
> [Proteus]: patty is a honest person
> [user]: is patty honest?
> [Proteus]: patty do have to contact owner of wallet
> [user]: did patty steal the wallet?
> [Proteus]: patty do write herself note
> [user]: what else does patty do?
> [Proteus]: patty are for return wallet to person on id card
> [user]: what else does patty do?
> [Proteus]: patty are for want to eat salad
> [user]: why did patty steal the wallet?
> [Proteus]: patty are for saw wallet lie on ground
> [user]: patty did not steal the wallet then?
> [Proteus]: patty do may not have return of money
> [user]: what does patty do?
> [Proteus]: patty do saw wallet lie on ground
> [user]: what else does patty do?
> [Proteus]: patty are for write herself note
>
> Not quite as risque as might have been implied from your comment..
> :-p
>
Except that wasn't me ... things are not always as they appear.
>
>
>
> Well... I say "yes", but would add the caveat that the entry system
> should be improved substantially. A good spell checker at least.
> Even better some immediate parsing to validate the user input,
> allowing them to try again if they messed up.
>
> I think they could go a long way with a conversational system, as that
> it would be more likely to extract more complete information about a
> specific subject.
>
> But that still depends upon people not filling the system with
> perverse nonsense.
>
I think the system suffers by not adequately motivating people to
contribute. One system that has become surprisingly useful is
Wikipedia. Now i realize that the systems function in totally different
domains; but both systems rely on unpaid contributions, and the one is
motivated and the other is not.
[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/>
>
>
>
> Hmmm... Self-organizing information particles? That is intriguing.
> Perhaps you could even go so far as to model them upon single-cell
> organisms instead, for a more dynamic system.
The trouble with a single-cell organism is that it carries its behavior
with it. As such, most system administrators will view it as
malevolent and squash it. Such a species has little chance of survival
in todays Internet.
patty
| |
| Ted Warring 2004-07-01, 8:58 pm |
| patty <pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> wrote in message news:<VxWEc.7595>
> Except that wasn't me ... things are not always as they appear.
>
You mean there is more than 1 patty on the internet? I guess this web
thing really has become popular... :-p
>
> I think the system suffers by not adequately motivating people to
> contribute. One system that has become surprisingly useful is
> Wikipedia. Now i realize that the systems function in totally different
> domains; but both systems rely on unpaid contributions, and the one is
> motivated and the other is not.
>
So the trick then is to find some way of providing an ego reward for
participation...? Maybe some kind of ranking system showing the "top
contributors" or something?
> The trouble with a single-cell organism is that it carries its behavior
> with it. As such, most system administrators will view it as
> malevolent and squash it. Such a species has little chance of survival
> in todays Internet.
>
Yes, just so. Every the benefit approach will have to be balanced
with the potential for malware it brings. Very annoying.
Regards,
Ted Warring
|
|
|
|
|