Very good point Jeff, I suspect this material is ready for peer review (in the idealistic sense of the phrase peer review). I'll admit I've lost faith in the peer review process of today. For many reasons, too many to go into at the moment. Though despite my tangible dislike for journals which needs to be disrupted off the face of the earth, publishing with them most likely brings more academics onboard.
The main driver for this paper is to get everyone on the same page. I'd prefer seeing a comprehensive (white) paper, with a series of smaller papers focusing on smaller areas being published in the journals. All the detail is in the comprehensive. The smaller papers are to move academia along using a language and publication process they are familiar with. I suspect new names should be made to describe newly discovered phenomenon, with as emphasis on describing the right 'altitude' one needs to approach this problem. This conditions the academics to start adjusting the mindset to a certain level. Eventually causing a resonance which hopefully can be conducted into and through NuPIC. So we as a community had better be sure NuPIC is in shape such that the resonance won't shatter it. Jeff Hawkins <[email protected]> wrote: >When you say "canonical paper" are you thinking a peer reviewed paper >or an >updated white paper? Is it more important to be comprehensive (white >paper) >or published in peer reviewed journals? Or are you thinking something >else? >Jeff Kind regards Stewart -- Please excuse my typos and brevity _______________________________________________ nupic mailing list [email protected] http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic_lists.numenta.org
