A lap 2019. február 22., 14:10-kori változata

1. Day (2019.II.13)

Conclusions after the first meeting:

• the potential/wished chained effect (the connection between two courses based on a little team having both courses) should be stopped because
  • the speed of a small group is faster
  • the reaction of a greater group of Students are partially different
• the next meeting will be hold in a specific room with personal computers in order
  • to ensure the generation of digital finger/foot-prints for each Student
  • to ensure transparency (and therefore quality) for all details during the working together
• the next task should be a task being capable of catalyzing personal confrontations with operative details because
  • on the surface, messages/phenomena seem to be evident
  • but the "devil" is in the details
• the next tasks should support to finalize/catalyze already initialized topics like
  • creation of evaluation rule sets for arbitrary phenomena (definitions, co-operations, rule sets, etc.)
  • creation of re-definition-chains in a successive way demonstrating the potential of the complexity
• the next task should also be capable of
  • approximating professional contents (like new keywords parallel to the basic keyword of knowledge)
  • deriving temporary winners (e.g. the best definitions and the appropriate rule set ensuring robotized evaluation processes)
• Students should have more time for solutions of the next tasks in order
  • to confront with each relevant detail
  • but always being supervised by other Students and/or conductors during the whole time for solutions

Remarks: Students should also be more active (c.f. the history of the QuILT system demonstrates what can be seen later in an objective way...)

Remarks: Students could be more active in NEPTUN (through answering email's from the conductors) and/or in MOODLE (creating more definitions and re-definitions in frame of the appropriate forums).

Annexes:

• Demo of rule sets for evaluation of definitions: https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/OT1c.xlsx
  • Facultative tasks:
  • What kind of additional information can be identified in the file compared to the information during the first meeting?
  • Why are the information units relevant?
• Defintions of knowledge: https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/OT1a.docx
  • (each version will be analyzed in a separate way and in connection to each other)
  • (the results will be published as a kind of learning material)

2. Day (2019.II.20)

Conclusions after the second meeting:

• without own experiences: a kind of massive lack of satisfaction could be detected concerning the usefulness of the chained translation
• in case of own experiences: the potential of the logic of the chained translation can be interpreted step by step
  • the existence of the critical aspect is relevant
  • critics should be formulated in written form incl. arguments and detailed improvements
  • detailed critics needs detailed experiences:
    • https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/demo_chained_translations.docx
    • https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/reality_driven_education.docx
    • https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/chained-translations-legal-slang.docx
  • theoretical aspects are not always relevant enough till own experiences do not exist
    • detecting a joke through artificial intelligence is a high-level challenge (c.f. Turing-test)
    • being independent from a mentor (c.f. AWS vs. chained translation) is an important level of the expected/needed sovereignty
• a kind of massive acceptance could be detected in case of the Rosling-animation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo&t=218s)
• a kind of massive and instinctive misunderstanding of chaos/pattern could be detected in case of the Pendulum-video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhMiuzyU1ag)
  • the Rosling-animation works with chaos and it derives a kind of pattern-like figure
  • the Pendulum is a kind of strong pattern without or points of views, but the subjective perspectives can lead to misunderstandings of physical phenomena
• the detected antagonisms should be solved
  • see learning material Nr.2 - ASAP
  • in order to see the first impulses about research activities
• the chained translation is not the unique/single way to detect weaknesses in a definition
  • we need to play barkochba-games
    • at first: a plant or animal should be derived based on the animal taxonomy / plant systematics
      • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_taxonomy
      • https://www.insectidentification.org/insect-description.asp?identification=May-Beetle
    • the second attempt should be a subject (like steering wheel of a car - it means a technical object or a particular type/model of cars)
      • http://www.jot.fm/issues/issue_2004_05/article4/
      • https://ai2-s2-public.s3.amazonaws.com/figures/2017-08-08/011ffa226a58b6711ce509609b8336911325b0e0/4-Figure1-1.png or
      • https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Semantic-Similarity-Based-on-Corpus-Statistics-and-Jiang-Conrath/011ffa226a58b6711ce509609b8336911325b0e0
    • the last game should be about an abstraction (like knowledge, competence, competency, intelligence, information, data, etc.)
      • the more sophisticated is a definition the more people are able to guess it in frame of a barkochba-game and/or the less time is required for the guessing (c.f. the less amount of questions and/or the more trivial are these questions)
      • control view: Is a series of question capable of classifying each focused expression (like knowledge, competence, competency, intelligence, information, data, etc.) in one single system?

Important questions: Why should we have definitions at all? Where should we use definitions at all? 
(An already known question: Which definition is better than an other definition?)

• supporting remarks into the learning material Nr.1: https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/Definitions_of_knowledge.docx
  • positive remarks in form of questions: https://miau.my-x.hu/miau/quilt/demo_questions_to_important_messages.docx
  • negative remarks (see critics above): with arguments and detailed improvements at once