| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Gyuri Lajos

Page history last edited by Dmitry Sokolov 3 years, 11 months ago

Go:

 Visual Taxonomy Links   Hide/Show:

Taxonomy Path

SSS Yet To Be Done.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/gyuri-lajos/Gyuri Lajos

  • Gyuri Lajos

Founder at TRAILMARKS LTD

  • Sheffield, United Kingdom

Freelance Consulting Knowledge (Graph) Architect

interest in building Knowledge Eco systems through co-evolving Enterprise Knowledge Graphs grounded in (Decent)ralized Personal Knowledge Graphs

Weaving a Decentralized Semantic Web of (Personal) Knowledge

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334126329_Weaving_a_Decentralized_Semantic_Web_of_Personal_Knowledge

The oN Line System, a "one-computer world wide web" was bootstrapped at the Augmentation Research Center lead by Doug Engelbart 50 years ago.

I am dedicated to contributing to a "back to the future" project that could regain the lost paradigm of "Intellect Augmentation" enhancing Collective Intelligence as shown rather then told in the Mother of All Demos 50 years ago.

Experience

Conversence Solutions

Consulting Knowledge Architect

Conversence Solutions

Dates Employed Apr 2019 – Present

Employment Duration 10 mos

Location remote

Contributing to the design of HyperKnowledge, an Open Knowledge Federation Protocol.

Weaving a Web of Knowledge federating, personal, interpersonal, community level knowledge work.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334126329_Weaving_a_Decentralized_Semantic_Web_of_Personal_Knowledge

(PDF) Weaving a Decentralized Semantic Web of (Personal) Knowledge

Software Consultant

Augmentation Research Community

Dates Employed Feb 2018 – Present

Employment Duration 2 yrs

Within the Augmentation Research Community http://doug-50.info/ we are working to build something to see what a 21st Century Augmentation System can be like.

No alt text provided for this imageEngelbart Demo at 50

Founder

TRAILMARKS LTD

Dates Employed Oct 2016 – Present

Employment Duration 3 yrs 4 mos

Location Sheffield, United Kingdom

TrailMarks is MEMEX for the web built with Opidox Augmentation Engine supporting MindGraphs pivoted from Wikinizer,

Presented at The Future of Text 2017

https://www.thefutureoftext.org/2017-speaker-list.html


https://doug-50.info/gyuri.html

Demo@50 | Doug Engelbart | The Demo | What Is Still Missing | What We Are Building | The Collaboration | Who We Are

Gyuri Lajos

Who I am

My background was in physics, philosophy, and history and philosophy of science. I then became interested in the potential of computers to augment our problem solving capacities, arriving at the belief that without the augmentation afforded by computers philosophy is empty, and without computing philosophy is blind. 25 years ago I completed a PhD at Leeds University in “Language-Oriented Programming in Meta-Lisp”. After ten years I left academia, and have worked in IT as a software consultant ever since. For the last eight months I worked In Budapest as a Full Stack Javascript Lead Developer at Lufthansa Systems, and from October 2017 until February at Hubscience, a startup within the biomed knowledge management field.

At the heart of my research has been exploring what users need in order

My web or social media presence

I created a twitter account for MindDrive https://twitter.com/MindDriveCo where I have piloted the capability to turn Google Drive into a Personal Knowledge Graph. Also for TrailMarks itself: https://twitter.com/TrailMarks

On this archived page, from the Linked Up Challenge blog produced with the help of my co-author Andrew Benedek, we announced our plans to pivot Wikinizer, a “next generation personal knowledge management tool”, into MindGraph: https://web.archive.org/web/20180208164825/https://linkedup-project.eu/2014/12/22/wikinizer-introducing-mindgraph/

MindGraph is not just another app, it hosts an Augmentation Engine which powers the capability infrastructure needed to build DKR2, OHS etc. as I envision it.

I have 6 active private projects on GitLab https://gitlab.com/gyuri.lajos. Four are for my products, and two for the collaboration with Hubscience.

At Research Gate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gyuri_Lajos2 I have copies of our published papers on WikiNizer together with my thesis.

What I am Doing

I prototyped a range of Personal Knowledge Management capabilities as a way of investigating the possibility of co-evolving a live bootstrappable kernel called Opidox, which supports full tinkerability, user extensibility, and personalizability on the Web. In its scope it is comparable to Dan Ingalls Lively Kernel https://www.lively-kernel.org/

My kernel, instantiated at https://mindgraph.co, provides a graph based Universal Data model. This model supports the design and generation of extendible Universal Hypermedia Formats and Applications, and it can also be used to incorporate entire connected neighbourhoods of nodes drawn from WikiData and other linked data sources.

I have developed prototypes which support web research, software design work, project planning, and tracking. Integration with the Interplanetary File System https://ipfs.io/ by Protocol Labs https://protocol.ai/ promises a quick way to add team collaboration and full distributability.

How it Relates to Doug's Work

I learned about Doug’s work about six years ago. As Adam Cheyer, the author of Collaborama reminds us “One of Doug’s key ideas was bootstrapping, and that you should use the system you are building to build itself.” Collaborama carries this vision forward by applying it to software development itself. NLS was also built this way.

It is an overlooked fact however that NLS was bootstrapped to the point of offering a higher level of expressive power than the technology it incorporated.

By raising expressive power bootstrapping saves the user engaged in articulating new capabilities from the intellectual unmanageability of unnecessary complications and repetitions. This is the key factor enabling us to pursue co-evolutionary change at a much reduced cost.

What aspect/features of the DKR I feel should be built

I strongly agree with the points that Adam Cheyer made in his answer to the same this question. I would like to add that we should not only try to build DKR, we should also take on the challenge of rekindling the Augmentation Research process itself.

The Augmentation Research that produced NLS was conducted on only one computer. But as Vint Cerf succinctly pointed out, what they built was a "one-computer world wide web". https://www.wired.com/2012/04/epicenter-isoc-famers-qa-cerf/

Today, Augmentation Research should not be conducted on one computer, it should be distributed, globally collaborative, accessible, permanent, etc, from the outset.

I also firmly believe that we need to start with Personal Knowledge Management, and as indicated above, that it should be built with an inherently distributed technology which carries with it the prospect of instant collaboration. Fortunately IPFS, orbitdb, the whole nodejs / npm ecosystem, Protocol labs, matrix HashGraph supply us with the basic plumbing that can turn a “Personal DKR” based on MindGraph into a fully fledged collaborative and distributed DKR. I envisage place, we call “Conceptipedia” where discoverable content forming a public knowledge graph is made available with access granted via micropayments.

What infrastructures and components I think will be required and I am working on

Recently I found a Presentation by Doug Engelbart describing the capability infrastructure for OHS, DKR, Networked Improvement Communities doing the “C” task of continuous Augmentation Research.

http://www.dougengelbart.org/media/Paradigm-map.pps

The Capability infrastructure described in that presentation is virtually isomorphic to the capabilities I have bootstrapped over the years. Bootstrapping of this capability graph is in progress as I upgrade MindGraph's model to be compatible with the collaborative Common Knowledge Graph incorporating nodes from WikiData.

My call for action is: Let us build the DKR and the Open Hypertext System based on the MindGraph Augmentation Kernel, a new cosmology, that is fully distributed, and permanent, with micro payment, transclusion, all the things built in which Ted Nelson was right about all these years.

Remember that Doug’s vision, like Alan Kay’s, was not to simply to create an application, but to create an entire industry. Our current IT industry is built on the “Worse is Better” New Jersey Philosophy. https://www.dreamsongs.com/WorseIsBetter.html

It is running us into the ground while software is eating the world. We need to reconstitute that industry by working towards the goal of regaining the lost Paradigm of Engelbart’s Augmentation Research.

How I Hope to Integrate with a DKR or Contribute

In practical terms, I propose getting the ball rolling by turning the DKR2 contributors questionnaire into a collaborative mindgraph. We can set it up as an improvement community so that everyone can elaborate their ideas and contribute to it by capturing relevant information via linking to entities drawn from the knowledge graph, from the collaborative mind graph, group annotations etc.

Integrate with Hypothesis, to start constructive discussion over the web. I have a prototype built called Trailmarks, that lets you capture and mark the trails you blaze across the Web as the user explores the frontiers of his knowledge. Its distinguishing feature is that it is serverless. I.e. if you wish it would work without ever leaving your home network.

On the other hand you can share entire research context comprising up to 5k nodes presently, in a single self contained HTML file that when opened turns into a live Trailmarks application.

This can also be hosted on the Inter Planetary File System...

To that mix I propose adding “Deep Annotation” which anchors annotations in The Knowledge Graph, and let’s communities of interests roll their own Knowledge Graphs as collaborative MindGraphs. Unlike WikiData or Google’s own graphs these will be built without the requirement of being notable. As such they will be of more value to communities and individuals with strong privacy guarantees, although still anchored and linked to each other through The “Common” Knowledge Graph, discoverable through Conceptipedia.

Over the past four months for HubScience I produced technology which enables a dedicated knowledge graph to be created based on biomed related data extracted from WikiData saved into MongoDb. The purpose of this was to deepen their annotation process and remarks. I would like to make this technology “eventually open source”, and would be interested in working with the great team at eLife to add deep annotation to their freshly minted Hypothesis integration.

Revive the Project planner tracker piloted within TrailMarks. Get is started by making it collaborative using MongoDb, but in the meantime develop a migration path to IPFS.

I propose that we create a DKR2 group on hypothes.is, and shared with all the people in the group, so they can link to annotations they make or find within the group. I have the basic plumbing in place to turn an annotation group into a MindGraph compatible with TrailMarks. This integration could be accomplished with a month, and I would like to find community support for this effort.

With appropriate levels of support and collaboration all of the above could be completed by the end of July.

Beyond that, I would like to focus on bootstrapping and let the community do whatever they deem worthwhile. I would like to see integration with the matrix, riot and other things which may emerge.

My scenario/walkthrough

Instead of relying on Artificial Intelligence, use the Augmented Intelligence of the “MindGraph Matrix” (built with IPFS and matrix.io). As they pursue their interests, users will add nodes from their own MindGraph to the matrix, making them discoverable. As a consequence of discovering and connecting to things created by others within the MindGraph Matrix, the graph grows.

Nodes added to the graph are discoverable either by search or by following links within the MindGraph. The more people connect and use nodes created by other users, the more valuable the graph gets, and the more micropayments each user will receive. The networks of meanings emerging within the MindGraph Matrix, which is built for humans by humans, creates a bigger and deeper Knowledge Graph than can be built by any Artificial Intelligence. Collaboration not only creates better alternative Knowledge Graphs, it also help us to regain control of our digital future.

Let us recall that Doug’s dream was squashed in part by the by the promise of AI. Do not let the AI which currently exists squash human potential for the second time round 50 years down the line.

How I Prefer to Collaborate

Initially I would prefer to contribute remotely in a virtual team. I am exploring however the possibility of re-establishing contact with my alma mater, Leeds University. I am ready to relocate. I would be happy to act as a supervisor/external consultant for postgraduate students contributing to the DKR2 project or other relevant tasks. As for licensing, I am exploring the possibility of adopting an “eventual open source” model or “fair licensing”, as exemplified by GitLab.


This is a personal account of the impression gained by Stephan Kreutzer. The description might be outdated or incorrect, so please contact the author(s) of this page to incorporate updates or do them yourself, or preferably provide a contextualized profile of what the individual does in relation to the topics covered on this site.

Gyuri spent several years implementing a hypertext system in Java, but then switched to the web in order to improve chances for adoption. He completed an implementation in the browser that does augmentation and ViewSpecs even locally offline and uses a generic graph data structure. SOP restrictions of the browser are circumvented with the help of a browser plugin. Conceptually, he subscribes to the notion of personal knowledge by Michael Polanyi, which means that individual knowledge work is core for his activities, which of course can extend to collective interaction, but not necessarily so. Other influences are Lisp, decentralized file storage and Hypothes.is. Have a look at TrailMarks and this post.


http://www.hunfi.hu/nyiri/VL_5/BenedekG-Lajos_abstr.pdf

Gyuri LAJOS 1975-79 read Physics and Philosophy at Eötvös Loránd University. 1981-84 BSc Hons in Physics and History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Leeds. 1985-92 PhD by research at the University of Leeds on Language-Oriented Programming. 1985-95 research assistant: verifying Synchronous Concurrent Algorithm in NuPrl, University Modular timetabling using Constraint Logic programming. 1996 to 2002 software consultant at Easysoft. From 2003 freelance software consultant. 2003-05 DTI Smart Award Research and Development on Personalized Mobile computing, Opidox. 2008 to present day works as lead developer and part time technology scout at Lufthansa Systems, Budapest. For the past three years together with a team and his co-authors works as the founder of Wikinizer, a Personal Knowledge Augmentation engine and its collaborative reference model, called "Conceptipedia". E-mail: gyurio@gmail.com


Links  

See Also


Subcategories

``P

Pages

Pages in Other Languages

Forking

Categories

Complete University modular timetabling using constraint logic programming

  • Gyuri Lajos
  • Gyuri Lajos
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Artificial Intelligence, School of Computer StudiesUniversity of LeedsEngland
Resoning About Constrainsts
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1153)

Abstract

In preparation for the changeover to a new modular degree structure, at the University of Leeds, a new modular timetable for the 1993–94 academic session had to be constructed from scratch. This paper describes our experience in constructing a large scale modular timetable using Constraint Logic Programming techniques.

Keywords

Constraint Satisfaction Problem Class Variable Graph Colouring Timetabling Problem Labelling Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This research has been partially supported by the KCM (Knowledge and Constraint Management) Initiative of the University Funding Councils' Information Systems Committee, and the New Technologies Initiative (NTI) of the Higher Education Funding Councils' Joint Information Systems Committee.

Preview

References

  1. 1.
    Syllabus Plus: A Management Aid to efficient Space and Resource Utilisation in Colleges. Scientia Ltd., St. Johns Innovation Centre, Cowley Rd. Cambridge CB4 4WS, Tel 01223 421221, 1993.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Abramson. Constructing school timetables using simulated annealing: sequential and parallel algorithms. Management Science, 37(1):98–113, Jan. 1991.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eric Atwell and Gyuri Lajos. Knowledge and Constraint Management: Large Scale Applications. In Knowledge at Work in Universities, pages 21–25. Leeds University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. Azevedo and P. Barahona. Timetabling in constraint logic programming. In Proceedings of World Congress on Expert Systems'94, January 1994.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Boizumault, C. Gueret, and N. Jussien. Efficient LabeEing and Constraint Relaxation for Solving Time Tabling Problems. In Proceedings of the Workshop on constraint Languages and their use in Problem Modelling, pages 116–130, Ithaca, New York, USA, 1994. International Logic Programming Symposium.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    E.G. Burke, D.G. Elliman, and R.F. Weare. A Genetic Algorithm for University Timetabling. In Proceedings of the 2nd East-West International Conference on Computer Technologies in Education, pages 35–40, Crimea, Ukraine, September 1994.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E.K. Burke, D.G. Elliman, and R. Weare. A university timetabling system based on graph colouring and constraint manipulation. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 27(1):1–18, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Cangalovic and J.A.M. Schreuder. Modelling and solving an acyclic multiperiod timetabling problem. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 35(3):177–95, 6 March 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Colorni, M. Dorigo, and V. Maniezzo. Genetic algorithms and highly constrained problems: the time-table case. In R. Schwefel, H.-P.; Manner, editor, Parallel Problem Solving from Nature. 1st Workshop, pages 55–9, Dortmund, West Germany, 1991. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dave Corne, Peter Ross, and Hsiao-Lan Fang. Fast Practical Evolutionary Timetabling. In T. Fogarty, editor, Evolutionary Computing: AISB Workshop 1994, Selected Papers, number 865 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. de Werra. An introduction to timetabling. In European Journal of Operational Research [17], pages 151–162.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    K.A. Dowsland. A timetabling problem in which clashes are inevitable. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 41(10):907–18, Oct. 1990.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Everetsz, M. Dalgarno, G. Forster, and S. Watt. Syllabus: A Solution to the School Timetabling Problem. In The First European Conference on the Practical Application of Lisp, pages 301–308, 1990.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. Frangouli and V. Harmandas P. Stamatopoulos. UTSE: Construction of Optimum timetables for University Courses — A CLP Based Approach. In The Third International Conference and Exhibition on Practical Applications of Prolog, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alain Hertz. Finding a feasible course schedule using tabu search. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 35(3):255–70, 6 March 1992.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    L. Kang, G.H. Von Schoenberg, and G.M. White. Complete university timetabling using logic. Computers & Education, 17(2):145–53, 1991.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    L. Kang and G.M. White. A logic approach to the resolution of constraints in timetabling. European Journal of Operational Research, 61(3):306–17, 25 Sept. 1992.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    L. Kiaer and J. Yellen. Weighted graphs and university course timetabling. Computers & Operations Research, 19(1):59–67, Jan. 1992.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Kovacic. Timetable construction with markovian neural network. European Journal of Operational Research, 69(1):92–6, 27 Aug. 1993.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Edward Tsang. Foundations of Constraint Satisfaction. Academic Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pascal Van Hentenryck. Constraint Satisfaction in Logic Programming. Logic Programming Series. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pascal Van Hentenryck. Constraint logic programming. Knowledge Engineering Review, 6(3):151–194, September 1991. (Also available as Brown University Technical Report CS-91-05).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

About this paper

Cite this paper as:
Lajos G. (1996) Complete University modular timetabling using constraint logic programming. In: Burke E., Ross P. (eds) Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling. PATAT 1995. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1153. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.