Talk:Knowledge representation and reasoning

message: As far as I understand, FIPA SL is also an example for a knowledge representation language. If nobody objects, I will add it to the list of example languages.
----
Revised introduction  I added an introduction and attempted to answer some of the questions on this page, and give a clear overview of the topic.  The topic of KR is broad, so I think we should split into parts, and I propose using the question system to direct  links (on the other hand, this may be inconsistent with the rest of the site).  There are philisophical, cognitive science (particular developmental), and artificial intelligent paths to take.  
In terms of AI, there are thousands of different directions for the topic as well.  We should at least make the distinction between those were are trying to model the entire world (e.g., common sense reasoning), and those who model just one specialized subset.  Of those groups, there lots of different approaches: logical (situation/event calculus, non-monotonic reasoning), statistical/connectionist, another type of symbolic that I'm having trouble classifying (script, frame, semantic nets, etc).... 
--- Dustin
----
Further work: Consult ,   and 
----
As an epistemologist and someone who has studied cognitive psychology a bit, I am very interested in having a much fuller, clearer explanation of what "the problem of how to store and manipulate knowledge" means.  It's not self-evident what the problem even is supposed to be.
If this article is to be concerned entirely with this problem, then it should no doubt be located at the problem of knowledge representation (if that's the best name for the problem). --LMS
----
What is the difference between knowledge representation and just keeping data in a computer memory? -- User:Hirzel
: Computers don't know anything; they are not conscious.
:: Why do you think Computers don't know anything, but humans do? I mean, what exactly constitutes the difference? --denny vrandečić 10:51, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
----
What about our species knowledge ? That's called Taxonomy and might be included in this article :0)
Hashar
----
I would like to see a greater variety of representations listed e.g. patterns, distinctions, concepts, stories, activities, events, cases, rules, objects. More attention to ephemeral (audio) and visual forms.
----
This article needs an almost complete rewrite. It is very poor as it is. Any textbook on Artificial Intelligence is way better than this.
----
:This article is about Knowledge representation and reasoning as used in the field of Symbolic Artificial Intelligence. The question of how humans represent and reason about knowledge is a question for psychology and philosophy. If someone wants to create such an article we could change the title of this article to make clear it is for computer science. Although my guess is there are good articles on that topic already (e.g., Epistemology) although they may not have the exact name of this article, please check before you create a new one. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening comments 

message: Currently at the end of the introduction someone added this sentence: "The KR conference series was established to share ideas and progress on this challenging field." and there is a link to some little known scientific foundation devoted to knowledge representation: http://www.kr.org/  I don't think this group is important enough to justify having them at the beginning of the article. There are much more prestigious organizations such as AAAI or IEEE but there is really no need to talk about conferences or specific groups in the introduction to the article. I'm going to remove that sentence and reference and move the link to the external links section of the article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving Advertisement Reference 

message: The second paragraph of the History section is problematic in several respects:
::In these early days of AI, general search algorithms such as A* were also developed. However, the amorphous problem definitions for systems such as GPS meant that they worked only for very constrained toy domains (e.g. the "blocks world"). In order to tackle non-toy problems, AI researchers such as Ed Feigenbaum and Frederick Hayes-Roth realized that it was necessary to focus systems on more constrained problems.
The transition from systems, such as GPS, that worked only for very constrained domains to systems that focussed on more constrained problems sounds like a step backwards rather than forwards.
There is no mention, moreover, of the great debates of the late 1960s and early 1970s about logical versus procedural representations of knowledge. No mention either of the emergence of logic programming and of such notions as  Algorithm = Logic + Control, which emerged from those  debates. Robert Kowalski (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing History 

message: The article takes the position that the choice between full FOL and alternative representations such as frames, semantic networks and rules is primarily a choice between the greater expressibility of FOL and the greater efficiency, for example, of rules. Paul Thagard, in his popular Introduction to Cognitive Science,https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Mind_second_edition/gjcR1U2HT7kC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PP11&printsec=frontcover takes a very different point of view, arguing, for example, that rules are more expressive than logical conditionals. See the section Logic programming#Relationship with the Computational-representational understanding of mind in the article on logic programming, which presents yet another view. Robert Kowalski (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing alternative points of view