Ask not what a search company can do for you .., or time to refactor the global knowledge base.

Intro.
The time for great updates in academics has come, - that's the idea of this post; the companies to refactor the "spaghetti" global knowledge can be type of Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Wikipedia. The idea to write the post came to me when doing Google search with the phrases "language processing" and "processing language". On the first phrase the results were mostly related to natural language processing. On the phrase "processing language" the results were mostly related to the open source programming language "Processing" (thanks guys).

I thought that something wrong was about the search because regardless of word order, the two words relate to the broad AI-related scientific concept. But the programming language "Processing" is just an instance of programming language concept probably not related to AI at all. The AI scientific community would need to spend extra time to figure out how to filter out the results if possible at all. That's not only about scientist's productivity, that's about quality of search, quality of scientist's work. 

Ask not what a search company can do for you.
So, how to deal with the issue of "blurred search":

- Are we to ask the search company to tweak something in their search algorithm, by, say,  heavily enhancing their model to provide the kind of option of "academic layer"? If a scientist selects the option, the results would mostly be "academic", about concepts, not about particular realizations (instances).

- Or should we ask all the web-content creators to follow some basic rules when choosing this or that English word to let their product stay high in search results?

Neither of the above, in my opinion.

Time to refactor the global knowledge base.
These above options are just "patches" to current working system. But, does it make sense "to patch" the current working system or, probably, it would be better off to develop a new approach and build up a new "global knowledge management system" (without destroying the working legacy one)?

Let's step back and look at the bigger picture. The issues are:
- A barrier for a scientist to expose his work. Publishing is expensive and takes a lot of time. A work that is not backed up by a good amount of money or authority has a little chance to serve the science. Instead, a not-so-good idea backed up by some kind of authority would make its way up, raise money and pay back to maintain the authority. The system gets counterproductive, it doesn't always serve the entire society.

- A barrier for a scientist to access works of other scientists. The access is mostly not free. To produce a science-related work one needs to look through, say, hundred of works of others. Where is he expected to get the money? To serve science it takes a lot of money. Is that good? Again, the system gets counterproductive, the researches, who are willing to contribute to science, don't always have access to needed information.

- A barrier for fellow scientists to review the science-related work. The system is not transparent in this respect. As far as I understand, there exists layer of "middlemen" to decide who would peer review whom. I believe it should work mostly automatic. 

- Lack of community feature. The community should feature not just "peer review" practice. It should provide tools for collaboration.

- The scientific works are mostly examples of "spaghetti" knowledge. The ideas are often NOT a)reasonably normalized, b)separated into loosely coupled coarse grained items with clear input conditions, output statements and a body of logic. The "spaghetti" structure doesn't allow a scientist to reuse the logic of scientific works in automatic mode.

- Automatic connection to a "brain" or to a "mind" project can't easily be done. Reverse engineering of a system (brain) only makes sense if the understanding of the output (knowledge base in this context) of the system is not in "spaghetti" state.  

- Can't easily be done automatic connection to the kind of "Language learner hub" (see my post http://sukhotinsky.blogspot.com/2010/11/google-language-learner-hub-or-human.html ) .

- Can't easily be done automatic connection to the kind of "Pattern Repository and Expert System Over It" (see my post http://weblogs.asp.net/sergeys/archive/2011/05/25/pattern-repository-and-expert-system-over-it.aspx ) .

How and whom to refactor the global knowledge base.
- Concept of the structure of a scientific work. A company type of Microsoft, probably, would be the best to lead the development of the concept. The complexity of products they have been dealing with for decades hints that their experience can be reused to define what could be a knowledge item, how to "coarse grain" and decouple knowledge items within a scientific work, how to "entry point" a scientific work down to a particular knowledge item, etc etc.  

- Scientist global identification. The players type of Microsoft, Google, Facebook are quite good at it.

- Tools to develop a scientific work, - MS Office and Visual Studio, Open Office etc.

- The concept of collaboration. Companies like Facebook and Wikipedia have proven experience in the area, why not to reuse it?

- Search system over the global knowledge base, - major search companies.

What to start with.
A user identification is working already by Microsoft, Google, Facebook and others. Next steps could be:
- Some portal with email address a user can send his work to. By message_id the publication (content of the email) should be accessible to everyone.
- A set of templates for office software or even Visual Studio should be available to let a user to compose and properly format his work.
- Some tag system to label the works.
- Some community functionality to let users to organize into groups and "peer review" each other.

Probably it's time not to only navigate through academics or scholar content, it's time to start creating knowledge in new format and refactor old content.

Thank you.
Sergey D. Sukhotinsky.
http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/
http://weblogs.asp.net/SergeyS
--
Message-ID: <DUB119-W2584966068D58EDBF2EE2DBCB0@phx.gbl>
From: Sergey Sukhotinsky <sukhotinsky@live.com>
To: Sergey Sukhotinsky <cognitive.walkthrough@gmail.com>
Subject: Ask not what a search company can do for you .., or time to refactor the global knowledge base.
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:31:07 +0300
--

How to spot a Geo-science talent

I posted a message "How to spot a Geo-science talent" to GEO-TECTONICS List a few days ago. I tried to show how a talented kid would approach one of the basic Plate Tectonics puzzles, - How could an oceanic plate be more dense than the underlying layer of mantle?

Being not under the pressure of need to play the "Science" game, the talented kid, would probably think simple:
- With time the oceanic plate can't get from bottom the denser material than the upper mantle itself, as the the denser material would just sink on solidifying.
- With time the oceanic plate gets thicker, not denser (roughly) as the upper and bottom temperatures are fixed, the average temperature roughly remains the same. The plate's material thermal expansion coefficient is quite low, hence the plate's average density doesn't change considerably with time.
 - So, what's the reason an oceanic plate exposes denser layers on de-lamination on subduction? Why not to suggest that the very mechanism of the plate generation produce the denser layer within the oceanic plate? That's it.
 
---
My post to GEO-TECTONICS List (Tectonics & structural geology discussion list ).
title How to spot a Geo-science talent.
pubDate Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:05:03 +0300
guid https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=geo-tectonics;24cc7655.1304
Gmail posting:
date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:05:03 +0300
message-ID: <CAMETt9Vurk2XGbm6ZY=Y_3+oUyr+NyrtEmfbCky6bVjGsSj4Xg@mail.gmail.com>
---
The great thing about NSF is that they are not "fixed" in some way, they publish articles not only to answer questions, but at times also to raise some: "The researchers are now trying to find the source that supplies the magma in the newly discovered layer."  from:
< http://nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=127315 > March 20, 2013, NSF, Press Release 13-045, Scientists Discover Layer of Liquified Molten Rock in Earth's Mantle. Hidden magma layer could play role in shaping the geologic face of our planet. Why not to redirect the puzzle about the source of the magma to kids? The puzzle could sound the next way:

Facts:
- There is an incoming plate that bends and subducts under the continent.
- The plate constantly is being spread out at some oceanic ridge some thousands km away.
- The density of the plate is known to be greater than the average density of the underlying mantle.
- NSF says "Scientists have discovered a layer of liquified molten rock in Earth's mantle that may be responsible for the sliding motions of the planet's massive tectonic plates." (see the link above)

Question (by NSF):
What's the source that supplies the magma in the newly discovered layer?

Select the answers that follow the next pattern:
- The greater density can't be due to just cooling because on the transition from ductile to rigid state the elementary volumes of more dense material would just sink down. The body of the Earth vibrates and the vibration would assist the process greatly.
- So, there should exist some mechanism that differentiate the mantle material at the oceanic ridge. The denser fraction of Earth's mantle builds up the plate, the less dense fraction of it has no choice other than to find its way down.
- The less dense fraction happens to be of lower melting temperature, hence the molten layer beneath the plate. Besides, as the process involves oceanic water, the less dense fraction and high temperature, it would only be natural to expect the layer to be related to
a) abiotic hydrocarbons generation (the less dense fraction accumulates under the bent as it can't follow the plate under the continent)
b) earthquakes, as the less dense fraction tends to find its way up and, also, the molten layer serves as the lubricant for plate movement.

Spot the kids with the answers that followed the pattern and have them to rule the Geo-science :-)

Thank you.
Sergey D. Sukhotinsky.
http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/
http://weblogs.asp.net/SergeyS
---

Message-ID: <DUB119-W18F03EF85D55A7A8F9D99CDBCC0@phx.gbl>
From: Sergey Sukhotinsky <sukhotinsky@live.com>
To: Sergey Sukhotinsky <cognitive.walkthrough@gmail.com>
Subject: How to spot a Geo-science talent
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:48:37 +0300

---

Convection currents in the mantle, still mainstream?

My post to GEO-TECTONICS List (Tectonics & structural geology discussion list ).
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 07:11:08 +0300

guid: < https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=geo-tectonics;10329ffa.1304 >
Gmail Message-ID: <CAMETt9V0Fv188MgrDXzPa738VCwx_+Qd83g3RbrcKJ0cd-DmSg@mail.gmail.com>
---

The phrase "North America then began moving westward, pushed by the spreading of the Atlantic Ocean to its east." caught my eye in:

< http://www.nature.com/news/how-the-west-was-built-1.12724 > Alexandra Witze (03 April 2013). How the West was built. Nature|News.

Interestingly, I thought, NOT convection currents in the mantle moved North America westward, but the very spreading of the Atlantic Ocean pushed it. What's the driving force behind the process? Well, let's look at the supplied link:

< http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v496/n7443/full/nature12019.html > Karin Sigloch, Mitchell G. Mihalynuk. Intra-oceanic subduction shaped the assembly of Cordilleran North America. Nature 496, 50–56 (04 April 2013) doi:10.1038/nature12019

Read on vertical slabs:

"Beneath North America these slab relics are massive, almost vertical walls extending from 800 to 2,000 km in depth, in depth, and typically 400-600 km wide. (Fig. 1.Supplementary Fig.1)" 

Well, let's go to the Supplementary. Read on material in the transition zone being smeared out:

"This view shows most clearly the almost vertical geometry of the deep slab walls below ~800 km depth, the segmentation of the Mezcalera and Angayucham walls, and their clear spatial separation from the crescent -shaped Cascadia Root and slab C2 further west. By contrast, material in the transition zone is smeared out laterally (yellow, green, blue shades). The vertical walls carry the geometric signature of intra-oceanic trenches, which can and do remain stationary over long periods, whereas the shallower slabs were deposited into a trench dragged along by the migrating continent. "

Great, shallower material was dragged along by the migrating continent, but how about deep slab walls? Why didn't they move with convection currents in the mantle? The slab walls' depth 2000km had been quite comparable to to the distance from the wall to the spreading ridge of the Atlantic Ocean on the course of the 150 Ma. The convection currents in the mantle should definitely disturb the walls; they did not.

No convection currents to drive the process, then what else to do the job? Hotspot frame? Some tens thousands km line of some km height speedy stream at the given mantle viscosity looks to require energy budget well above visible small fraction of Watt per square meter.   

Thank you.

Sergey D. Sukhotinsky.

http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/

http://weblogs.asp.net/SergeyS

---