Abdulhakim Bashir
My E-Portfolio based on work carried out on my Msc Program on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning at the University of Essex.
Collaborative Discussion 1: Summary Post
Summary Post
by Abdulhakim Bashir - Monday, 26 May 2025, 4:39 PM
Number of replies: 0
The discussion demonstrates remarkable consensus among us regarding knowledge representation’s deep historical foundations. All contributors effectively refuted the assertion that KR emerged solely with computing technology, presenting compelling evidence for its ancient origins.
Nikolaos’s contribution significantly enhanced my Initial discussion by extending the historical timeline from my focus on early modern Dutch pictography (Weststeijn, 2011) to include Paleolithic cave paintings (~40,000 BCE) and connecting these to formal logical traditions through Aristotle and Leibniz. This chronological expansion strengthens the argument for KR’s evolutionary rather than revolutionary development. His medical ontology example effectively illustrates the practical distinction between static knowledge storage and dynamic reasoning capabilities.
Abdulrahman’s supportive analysis reinforced the core arguments I made while emphasizing the evolutionary continuity between ancient and modern practices. His recognition of the “distinction between modern forms of computing and historic endeavor” aligns with my characterization of formalisation versus conceptual innovation.
However, I partially disagree with Nikolaos’s assertion that KR has substantial “standalone value” without reasoning. While acknowledging that databases and knowledge graphs provide organizational benefits, contemporary developments in neural-symbolic AI suggest the KR-reasoning boundary is increasingly blurred (d’Avila Garcez & Lamb, 2020). Modern knowledge graphs often embed implicit reasoning through semantic relationships and inference capabilities, challenging the traditional static-dynamic dichotomy.
The discussion collectively validates that KR represents humanity’s enduring pursuit to systematise knowledge, with computing technology serving as an evolutionary catalyst rather than an originating force. The convergence of perspectives from Paleolithic symbolism to Dutch universal characters to contemporary AI systems demonstrates KR’s fundamental role in human intellectual development.
Future research might explore how emerging neural-symbolic approaches continue this evolutionary trajectory, potentially dissolving traditional boundaries between representation and reasoning.
References
d’Avila Garcez, A. & Lamb, L.C. (2020) ‘Neurosymbolic AI: The 3rd wave’, Artificial Intelligence Review, 53(6), pp. 4819-4829.
Weststeijn, T. (2011). From hieroglyphs to universal characters: Pictography in the early modern Netherlands. Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art, 61(1), 238–281.
| ← Back to Unit 3 | KRR Module Home |