Making The Semantic Web Work

From a linkedin Artificial Intelligence Group I am In. 
I commented on the post:

Paul Houle
Applying Schemas for Natural Language Processing, Distributed Systems, Classification and Text Mining and Data Lakes

Making The Semantic Web Work

James Kitching

Hi Paul

I have been working my way through your slide presentation which I am very much enjoying. I have so far got to slide 38 and have a number of comments (Although perhaps I should have waited till I got to the end!):

1) You mentioned the maturity of BPM in understanding and modelling processes. But you have (so far) not mentioned the far greater maturity of the discrete event simulation application area (see This is an area similar to the Allen Algebra you did mention (’s_interval_algebra) where you comment “A complete theory is not fully developed but their are some pretty good tools available”. I think it is likely that discrete event simulation tools will indirectly (after a descriptive transformation) fully support Allen Algebra . Discrete event simulation has grown out of manufacturing industry’s need for business process optimisation. BPM’s heritage has more grown from the administration and financial services industries and is far less mature. I believe discrete event simulation is closer to what you are implying as a possible eventual target application for the semantic web.

Discrete event simulation is quite a complex topic to understand. You can get a flavour of what it involves from the wikipedia article I have quoted. You can get an impression of what and why this would be applicable to AI research at and (the how is far more difficult – but see this website and blog for more). How and why is works is described in this lengthy link You can say more about this in that you can go on from using simulation and apply machine learning or genetic algorithms to optimise or experiment on a simulation using what if scenarios. This kind of technology could be used to develop tool usage application or capability stategies (See Professor Murray Shanahan’s article “The Brain’s Connective Core and its Role in Animal Cognition” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, vol. 367(1603) (2012), pp. 2704-2714.).

I have this knowledge as I use to work for the Lanner Group. They are simulation tool company that grew from a branch of the IT department of British Leyland (originally the Austin motor company). They originally developed software to simulate and optimise the production activities within their car factory. Whilst at Lanner I worked on a project writing the specification to integrate Lanner’s Witness simulation engine into Popkin Software’s System Architect CASE tool. This application automated the translation of process models (in IDEF3 / BPM) with System Architect into animated 2D discrete event simulation models driven by the Lanner software.

For my part I am interested in developing an understanding and communication interface that has the capacity to merge and combine bootstrapped understanding (traditional linguistics / conceptual semantics) with an organic style / deep learning system modelled but modelled more on the skills of a language learning child .

Concerning how humans learn language and therefore what skills a computer might need I am just reading the PhD thesis of Barend Beekhuizen who recently completed his studies at Liden University in the Netherlands (reference I think so far that this is a really excellent common sense work in tackling the whole scope of the computerised language understanding problem, which so many have missed in the past.

As you implied elsewhere when you look across various areas of independent research the sum of understanding we actually have is far closer to achieving what is required than most people realise.

2) There appear to be a lot of very bright people still working on OWL. Yet you seem to have a very negative view of this technology for your area of research interest. Are these OWL researchers wrong or do they have other interests in applying OWL that do not currently appeal to you? If these people are interested in OWL for reasons that are not of interest to you what are these interests?

3) I believe that linguistic understanding needs to be grounded in association with a real world understanding and experience of the world and the objects and processes within it. Interesting / useful links:

As you will see if you read my website ( I am not currently an academic AI researcher, I am a commercial software engineer. You will also see that I would like obtain a PhD in this area and work ideally work in academia. I have been offered a PhD position based on a submission I made to Dr Behazad Bordbar and Dr Mark Lee from Birmingham University in the UK. Note the interests I have expressed above are beyond the scope of this original project. I would be very interested in seeking funding to be able to undertake this work full-time. I ideally want to work in an open source manner (see I am considering applying for EU seventh framework funding. It would assist my chances of obtaining funding to partner with other researchers in seeking this funding. I am very grateful for the support and interest Behazad and Mark have given me to try to develop and contribute in this research area. Depending on the terms of the finance I may manage to obtain and the scope of the work I seek to pursue they may be interested in continuing to support my research interests. I would further be interested in hearing from any other academics who might be interested in collaborating with me or assist me in pursuing an academic career.