perm filename AI.TXT[BB,DOC]3 blob sn#829844 filedate 1986-12-09 generic text, type C, neo UTF8
COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00281 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00035 00002	This file (AI.TXT[BB,DOC]) is currently volume 4 of the AI-LIST digest.
C00038 00003	∂06-Jan-86  1349	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #1 
C00063 00004	∂08-Jan-86  1228	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #2 
C00088 00005	∂12-Jan-86  0022	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #3 
C00107 00006	∂12-Jan-86  0225	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #4 
C00126 00007	∂12-Jan-86  0425	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #5 
C00150 00008	∂15-Jan-86  1300	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #6 
C00170 00009	∂15-Jan-86  1525	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #7 
C00185 00010	∂15-Jan-86  1819	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #8 
C00203 00011	∂20-Jan-86  1619	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #10
C00219 00012	∂20-Jan-86  1828	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #9 
C00232 00013	∂22-Jan-86  1323	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #11
C00253 00014	∂22-Jan-86  1604	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #12
C00272 00015	∂22-Jan-86  1833	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #13
C00291 00016	∂24-Jan-86  1537	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #14
C00317 00017	∂24-Jan-86  2029	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #15
C00335 00018	∂29-Jan-86  2343	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #16
C00363 00019	∂30-Jan-86  0155	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #17
C00387 00020	∂30-Jan-86  0336	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #18
C00410 00021	∂03-Feb-86  1355	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #19
C00427 00022	∂07-Feb-86  1353	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #20
C00441 00023	∂07-Feb-86  1707	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #21
C00463 00024	∂10-Feb-86  0059	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #22
C00485 00025	∂12-Feb-86  1615	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #23
C00502 00026	∂12-Feb-86  2041	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #25
C00527 00027	∂12-Feb-86  2316	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #24
C00543 00028	∂14-Feb-86  0024	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #26
C00559 00029	∂14-Feb-86  0240	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #27
C00587 00030	∂16-Feb-86  2310	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #28
C00607 00031	∂17-Feb-86  0055	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #29
C00624 00032	∂17-Feb-86  0234	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #30
C00640 00033	∂20-Feb-86  1558	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #31
C00676 00034	∂21-Feb-86  0101	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #32
C00703 00035	∂21-Feb-86  1323	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #33
C00732 00036	∂23-Feb-86  1525	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #35
C00757 00037	∂23-Feb-86  1748	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #34
C00780 00038	∂26-Feb-86  1512	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #36
C00798 00039	∂27-Feb-86  0523	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #37
C00817 00040	∂27-Feb-86  0923	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #38
C00840 00041	∂27-Feb-86  1407	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #39
C00859 00042	∂28-Feb-86  0102	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #40
C00878 00043	∂28-Feb-86  1313	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #41
C00895 00044	∂04-Mar-86  0222	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #42
C00920 00045	∂04-Mar-86  0435	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #43
C00944 00046	∂06-Mar-86  1244	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #44
C00971 00047	∂06-Mar-86  1616	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #45
C00983 00048	∂06-Mar-86  1919	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #46
C01005 00049	∂10-Mar-86  1450	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #47
C01035 00050	∂10-Mar-86  1800	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #48
C01061 00051	∂10-Mar-86  2039	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #49
C01081 00052	∂11-Mar-86  2017	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #50
C01093 00053	∂12-Mar-86  1530	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #51
C01114 00054	∂13-Mar-86  1446	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #52
C01133 00055	∂13-Mar-86  1828	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #53
C01150 00056	∂14-Mar-86  1410	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #54
C01170 00057	∂17-Mar-86  0124	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #55
C01194 00058	∂17-Mar-86  0304	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #56
C01207 00059	∂17-Mar-86  0509	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #57
C01233 00060	∂17-Mar-86  0830	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #58
C01260 00061	∂19-Mar-86  1558	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #59
C01285 00062	∂19-Mar-86  1932	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #60
C01309 00063	∂20-Mar-86  2011	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #61
C01342 00064	∂20-Mar-86  2255	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #62
C01356 00065	∂26-Mar-86  0128	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #63
C01383 00066	∂26-Mar-86  1427	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #64
C01396 00067	∂02-Apr-86  0307	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #65
C01422 00068	∂02-Apr-86  0625	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #66
C01440 00069	∂08-Apr-86  0207	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #67
C01463 00070	∂08-Apr-86  0410	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #68
C01482 00071	∂08-Apr-86  0713	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #69
C01506 00072	∂09-Apr-86  0104	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #70
C01533 00073	∂09-Apr-86  0328	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #71
C01564 00074	∂09-Apr-86  0550	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #72
C01581 00075	∂09-Apr-86  0826	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #73
C01603 00076	∂10-Apr-86  0211	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #74
C01634 00077	∂10-Apr-86  0441	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #75
C01662 00078	∂10-Apr-86  2132	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #76
C01689 00079	∂11-Apr-86  0355	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #77
C01722 00080	∂11-Apr-86  0611	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #78
C01748 00081	∂11-Apr-86  1031	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #79
C01774 00082	∂12-Apr-86  0109	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #80
C01801 00083	∂12-Apr-86  0312	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #81
C01828 00084	∂12-Apr-86  0536	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #82
C01855 00085	∂13-Apr-86  0153	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #83
C01883 00086	∂13-Apr-86  0350	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #84
C01910 00087	∂13-Apr-86  0519	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #85
C01922 00088	∂13-Apr-86  2304	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #86
C01951 00089	∂14-Apr-86  0117	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #87
C01975 00090	∂14-Apr-86  0330	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #88
C02007 00091	∂14-Apr-86  2331	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #89
C02031 00092	∂15-Apr-86  0257	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #90
C02064 00093	∂15-Apr-86  0907	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #91
C02097 00094	∂15-Apr-86  2313	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #92
C02118 00095	∂18-Apr-86  0117	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #93
C02141 00096	∂18-Apr-86  0430	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #94
C02161 00097	∂21-Apr-86  0157	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #95
C02194 00098	∂22-Apr-86  0111	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #96
C02219 00099	∂22-Apr-86  0324	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #97
C02253 00100	∂22-Apr-86  0605	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #98
C02267 00101	∂24-Apr-86  0049	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #99
C02297 00102	∂24-Apr-86  0310	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #100    
C02324 00103	∂26-Apr-86  0132	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #101    
C02360 00104	∂26-Apr-86  0343	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #102    
C02396 00105	∂26-Apr-86  0542	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #103    
C02430 00106	∂28-Apr-86  1309	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #104    
C02456 00107	∂29-Apr-86  0115	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #105    
C02487 00108	∂29-Apr-86  0357	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #106    
C02517 00109	∂01-May-86  0320	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #107    
C02542 00110	∂01-May-86  0513	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #108    
C02558 00111	∂02-May-86  0214	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #109    
C02598 00112	∂02-May-86  0446	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #110    
C02623 00113	∂04-May-86  0035	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #111    
C02657 00114	∂04-May-86  0219	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #112    
C02682 00115	∂05-May-86  0008	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #113    
C02710 00116	∂05-May-86  0226	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #114    
C02731 00117	∂07-May-86  0151	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #115    
C02757 00118	∂08-May-86  1417	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #116    
C02788 00119	∂08-May-86  2356	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #117    
C02822 00120	∂09-May-86  0251	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #118    
C02837 00121	∂09-May-86  0506	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #119    
C02857 00122	∂14-May-86  1451	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #122    
C02886 00123	∂14-May-86  1755	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #123    
C02911 00124	∂15-May-86  1435	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #120    
C02929 00125	∂15-May-86  1827	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #121    
C02952 00126	∂20-May-86  0132	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #124    
C02973 00127	∂20-May-86  0405	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #125    
C03001 00128	∂23-May-86  1741	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #126    
C03024 00129	∂23-May-86  2122	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #127    
C03050 00130	∂27-May-86  0212	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #128    
C03073 00131	∂27-May-86  0439	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #129    
C03093 00132	∂27-May-86  1346	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #130    
C03116 00133	∂27-May-86  1719	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #131    
C03142 00134	∂28-May-86  1319	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #132    
C03166 00135	∂28-May-86  1641	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #133    
C03193 00136	∂30-May-86  1209	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #134    
C03217 00137	∂03-Jun-86  0111	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #135    
C03237 00138	∂03-Jun-86  0325	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #136    
C03266 00139	∂03-Jun-86  0543	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #137    
C03293 00140	∂04-Jun-86  0034	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #138    
C03318 00141	∂04-Jun-86  0313	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #139    
C03358 00142	∂04-Jun-86  0548	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #140    
C03391 00143	∂04-Jun-86  2330	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #141    
C03424 00144	∂05-Jun-86  0157	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #142    
C03441 00145	∂06-Jun-86  1321	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #143    
C03466 00146	∂10-Jun-86  0025	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #144    
C03502 00147	∂10-Jun-86  0313	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #145    
C03536 00148	∂10-Jun-86  0547	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #146    
C03569 00149	∂10-Jun-86  0910	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #147    
C03602 00150	∂12-Jun-86  0201	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #148    
C03619 00151	∂16-Jun-86  0108	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #149    
C03642 00152	∂16-Jun-86  0315	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #150    
C03674 00153	∂17-Jun-86  1821	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #151    
C03701 00154	∂17-Jun-86  2129	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #152    
C03732 00155	∂18-Jun-86  0006	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #153    
C03757 00156	∂23-Jun-86  0128	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #154    
C03773 00157	∂23-Jun-86  0312	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #155    
C03799 00158	∂25-Jun-86  0116	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #156    
C03823 00159	∂25-Jun-86  0329	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #157    
C03854 00160	∂26-Jun-86  1657	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #158    
C03877 00161	∂01-Jul-86  1240	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #159    
C03892 00162	∂01-Jul-86  1558	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #160    
C03919 00163	∂07-Jul-86  1258	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #161    
C03948 00164	∂07-Jul-86  1531	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #162    
C03972 00165	∂07-Jul-86  1951	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #163    
C03996 00166	∂10-Jul-86  0152	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #165    
C04027 00167	∂10-Jul-86  0249	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #164    
C04051 00168	∂14-Jul-86  1428	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #166
C04081 00169	∂16-Jul-86  1551	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #167
C04100 00170	∂18-Jul-86  1531	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #168
C04124 00171	∂18-Jul-86  2216	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #169
C04149 00172	∂19-Jul-86  0036	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #170
C04178 00173	∂22-Jul-86  1340	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #171
C04201 00174	∂24-Jul-86  1402	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #172
C04224 00175	∂24-Jul-86  1721	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #173
C04246 00176	∂31-Jul-86  2159	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #174
C04263 00177	∂01-Aug-86  0034	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #175
C04289 00178	∂04-Aug-86  0059	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #176
C04312 00179	∂09-Aug-86  0237	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #177
C04338 00180	∂09-Aug-86  0431	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #178
C04355 00181	∂12-Aug-86  1821	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #179
C04362 00182	∂16-Sep-86  0515	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #180
C04390 00183	∂17-Sep-86  1608	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #181
C04419 00184	∂17-Sep-86  2046	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #182
C04445 00185	∂18-Sep-86  0321	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #183
C04465 00186	∂18-Sep-86  1518	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #184
C04486 00187	∂18-Sep-86  1931	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #185
C04513 00188	∂18-Sep-86  2245	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #186
C04536 00189	∂19-Sep-86  1549	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #187
C04550 00190	∂19-Sep-86  1909	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #188
C04579 00191	∂19-Sep-86  2115	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #189
C04598 00192	∂19-Sep-86  2321	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #190
C04623 00193	∂20-Sep-86  0139	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #191
C04652 00194	∂21-Sep-86  0022	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #192
C04674 00195	∂21-Sep-86  0150	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #193
C04701 00196	∂21-Sep-86  0317	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #194
C04728 00197	∂25-Sep-86  0011	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #195
C04756 00198	∂25-Sep-86  0243	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #196
C04787 00199	∂25-Sep-86  0528	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #197
C04816 00200	∂26-Sep-86  1659	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #198
C04844 00201	∂26-Sep-86  2251	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #199
C04876 00202	∂29-Sep-86  0011	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #200
C04894 00203	∂29-Sep-86  0153	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #201
C04926 00204	∂29-Sep-86  0351	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #202
C04963 00205	∂06-Oct-86  0020	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #203
C04989 00206	∂06-Oct-86  0210	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #204
C05019 00207	∂06-Oct-86  0348	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #205
C05045 00208	∂06-Oct-86  0551	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #206
C05075 00209	∂07-Oct-86  1248	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #207
C05100 00210	∂09-Oct-86  0301	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #208
C05134 00211	∂09-Oct-86  0449	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #209
C05158 00212	∂09-Oct-86  0739	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #210
C05195 00213	∂09-Oct-86  2304	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #211
C05219 00214	∂10-Oct-86  1438	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #212
C05236 00215	∂14-Oct-86  0015	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #213
C05253 00216	∂14-Oct-86  1234	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #214
C05275 00217	∂14-Oct-86  1615	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #215
C05299 00218	∂16-Oct-86  0008	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #216
C05315 00219	∂16-Oct-86  0248	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #217
C05339 00220	∂16-Oct-86  0507	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #218
C05356 00221	∂16-Oct-86  0807	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #219
C05386 00222	∂17-Oct-86  0045	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #220
C05421 00223	∂17-Oct-86  0308	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #221
C05443 00224	∂17-Oct-86  0526	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #222
C05475 00225	∂17-Oct-86  0840	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #223
C05509 00226	∂18-Oct-86  2246	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #224
C05534 00227	∂19-Oct-86  0043	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #225
C05552 00228	∂19-Oct-86  0252	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #226
C05582 00229	∂19-Oct-86  0434	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #227
C05605 00230	∂19-Oct-86  0624	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #228
C05629 00231	∂23-Oct-86  0121	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #229
C05648 00232	∂23-Oct-86  0423	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #230
C05667 00233	∂23-Oct-86  0713	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #231
C05685 00234	∂24-Oct-86  0205	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #232
C05708 00235	∂24-Oct-86  0652	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #233
C05744 00236	∂24-Oct-86  1125	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #234
C05763 00237	∂26-Oct-86  2349	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #235
C05778 00238	∂27-Oct-86  0145	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #236
C05815 00239	∂27-Oct-86  0331	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #237
C05838 00240	∂27-Oct-86  0524	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #238
C05857 00241	∂30-Oct-86  0200	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #239
C05879 00242	∂30-Oct-86  0420	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #240
C05898 00243	∂30-Oct-86  0724	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #241
C05933 00244	∂30-Oct-86  1229	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #242
C05966 00245	∂03-Nov-86  0232	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #243
C05988 00246	∂03-Nov-86  0424	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #244
C06012 00247	∂05-Nov-86  0202	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #245
C06040 00248	∂05-Nov-86  0405	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #246
C06062 00249	∂05-Nov-86  0710	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #247
C06087 00250	∂05-Nov-86  1055	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #248
C06123 00251	∂05-Nov-86  1423	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #249
C06149 00252	∂07-Nov-86  1725	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #250
C06184 00253	∂07-Nov-86  1940	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #251
C06203 00254	∂07-Nov-86  2215	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #252
C06224 00255	∂08-Nov-86  0130	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #253
C06247 00256	∂08-Nov-86  0306	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #254
C06268 00257	∂08-Nov-86  0433	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #255
C06290 00258	∂08-Nov-86  0624	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #256
C06320 00259	∂08-Nov-86  0803	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #257
C06342 00260	∂12-Nov-86  0126	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #258
C06374 00261	∂12-Nov-86  0350	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #259
C06398 00262	∂19-Nov-86  0039	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #260
C06423 00263	∂19-Nov-86  0234	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #261
C06445 00264	∂20-Nov-86  0143	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #262
C06471 00265	∂20-Nov-86  0346	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #263
C06506 00266	∂20-Nov-86  0527	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #264
C06524 00267	∂24-Nov-86  0236	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #265
C06550 00268	∂24-Nov-86  0441	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #266
C06586 00269	∂25-Nov-86  2314	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #267
C06614 00270	∂26-Nov-86  0131	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #268
C06649 00271	∂26-Nov-86  0358	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #269
C06682 00272	∂30-Nov-86  1623	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #270
C06703 00273	∂30-Nov-86  1803	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #271
C06722 00274	∂30-Nov-86  1954	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #272
C06756 00275	∂01-Dec-86  2313	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #273
C06789 00276	∂02-Dec-86  0114	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #274
C06809 00277	∂02-Dec-86  0308	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #275
C06839 00278	∂02-Dec-86  0450	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #276
C06860 00279	∂04-Dec-86  0041	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #277
C06881 00280	∂04-Dec-86  0234	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #278
C06897 00281	∂04-Dec-86  0437	LAWS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #279
C06925 ENDMK
C⊗;
This file (AI.TXT[BB,DOC]) is currently volume 4 of the AI-LIST digest.

The digests are edited by Ken Laws from SRI.  To get added to the list
send mail to AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI; better yet use CKSUM to read this
file.

Mail your submissions to AIList@SRI-AI.

Pointers to previous volumes:

Volume 1 (#1 to #117) of AI-LIST has been archived in file AI.V1[BB,DOC].
Volume 2 (#1 to #184) of AI-LIST has been archived in file AI.V2[BB,DOC].
Volume 3 (#1 to #193) of AI-LIST has been archived in file AI.V3[BB,DOC].

The old volumes will not be kept on the disk, although they'll be available
from backup tape if necessary.  Archive files are probably available online
at SRI-AI.

∂06-Jan-86  1349	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #1 
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Jan 86  13:49:04 PST
Date: Mon  6 Jan 1986 11:10-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #1
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest             Monday, 6 Jan 1986        Volume 4 : Issue 1

Today's Topics:
  Policy - Welcome & Technology Export Policy,
  Games - Wargamers List & Othello Tournament & Computer Chess Tutor

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun 5 Jan 86 23:21:57-PST
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Introduction to Volume 4

Welcome to AIList'86.  We went through 193 issues last year, and
a high proportion of that was interesting and perhaps even useful.
For those who haven't seen the official welcome message in the
last 2 1/2 years, I've been telling the new arrivals that the list
topics are:

  Expert Systems                        AI Techniques
  Knowledge Representation              Knowledge Acquisition
  Problem Solving                       Hierarchical Inference
  Machine Learning                      Pattern Recognition
  Analogical Reasoning                  Data Analysis
  Cognitive Psychology                  Human Perception
  AI Languages and Systems              Machine Translation
  Theorem Proving                       Decision Theory
  Logic Programming                     Computer Science
  Automatic Programming                 Information Science

I like to think of AIList as the forum for AI and pattern recognition,
although we've had precious little of the latter.

There are a number of related lists, some sparked by the success of
AIList.  Prolog-Digest@SU-SCORE was here first, of course, and I thank
Chuck Restivo for the help he gave me in getting started.
Human-Nets@RUTGERS also served as a template for AIList.  Recently
created lists are Soft-Eng@MIT-XX for programming languages and
man-machine interfaces; Vision-List@AIDS-UNIX for vision algorithms;
AI-Ed@SUMEX-AIM for AI in education (CAI, tutoring systems, user
modeling, cognitive learning, etc.); PARSYM@SUMEX for parallel
symbolic computing; IRList%VPI.CSNet@CSNet-Relay for information
retrieval; MetaPhilosophers%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC list for philosophy
discussions; and the Usenet net.math.symbolic and computers-and
society discussions.  Discussions of workstations and individual
languages are carried on WorkS@Rutgers, SLUG@UTexas (Symbolics), and
Scheme@MIT-MC.  (If someone wants to spin off other topics, such as
linguistics, seminar announcements, etc., I'll be glad to help.)

The digest goes out to a great many readers via bboards, redistribution
nodes, and Usenet forwarding.  I know that places like MIT and Xerox
have hundreds of readers, but I don't have even a rough estimate of
the total readership.  My direct distribution (after 738 revisions) is to

    Arpanet Hosts:
    ACC(BB+1), AEROSPACE(8), AFSC-SD, AIDS-UNIX, ALLEGRA@BTL, AMES-NAS,
    AMES-VMSB(4), AMSAA(3), ANL-MCS, APG-3(2), ARDC(3), ARE-PN@UCL-CS,
    ARI-HQ1(10), BBN(1), BBNA(BB+1), BBNCC4, BBNCCH(2), BBNCCS, BBNCCT(3),
    BBNCCX, BBNCCY(2), BBN-CLXX, BBNF, BBNG(14), BBN-LABS-B, BBN-MENTOR,
    BBN-META, BBN-SPCA, BBN-UNIX(9), BBN-VAX(6), B.CC@BERKELEY,
    D@BERKELEY.EDU, UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU, UCBCAD@BERKELEY(2),
    UCBCORY@BERKELEY, UCBDALI@BERKELEY(2), UCBERNIE@BERKELEY(4),
    UCBESVAX@BERKELEY, UCBIC@BERKELEY, UCBLAPIS@BERKELEY, BNL44,
    BRL(BB+1), BRL-VOC, C.MFENET@LLL-MFE, CECOM-1, CECOM-2,
    PCO@CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS, CIT-20, CIT-HAMLET, CIT-VAX, CMU-CS-A(BB+5),
    CMU-CS-G(2), CMU-RI-ISL1, COLUMBIA-20, CORNELL(BB+1),
    CRYS.WISC.EDU, CRDC-VAX2, CSNet-SH, DCA-EMS(2), DCT%DDXA@UCL-CS, DDN,
    HUDSON.DEC.COM(2), DEC-MARLBORO(2), Other.DEC@DECWRL(23), DMC-CRC,
    DOCKMASTER(2), DREA-XX, EDN-UNIX, EDN-VAX(2), EDWARDS-2060, EGLIN-VAX,
    ETL-AI, FORD-COS1, FORD-SCF1(2), FSU.MFENET@LLL-MFE(3), GE-CRD(2),
    SCH-GODZILLA@SCRC-STONY-BROOK(2) GSWD-VMS(BB+1), GUNTER-ADAM,
    GWUVM@MIT-MULTICS(3), HARV-10, HAWAII-EMH, HI-MULTICS(BB+1),
    CSCKNP@HI-MULTICS, HOPKINS, IBM-SJ, ISIA, ISI-VAXA(10), JPL-VAX,
    JPL-VLSI(7), KESTREL, LANL, LBL-CSAM, LLLASD.DECNET@LLL-CRG, LLL-CRG,
    LLL-MFE(6), CMA@LLL-MFE, DMA@LLL-MFE, ORN@LLL-MFE, PPL@LLL-MFE(2),
    SAI@LLL-MFE, LL-VLSI, LL-XN, LOGICON, MARYLAND, MCC-DB@MCC(2),
    AI@MCC(2), CAD@MCC, PP@MCC, MIT-MC, MIT-MULTICS, ADL@MIT-MULTICS,
    MIT-OZ@MIT-MC, MITRE(14), MITRE-BEDFORD, MITRE-GATEWAY(3), MOUTON,
    MWCAMIS@MITRE, MWVM@MITRE, NADC(9), NBS-VMS, NCSC(3), NLM-MCS,
    NOSC(BB+4), CCVAX@NOSC, NOSC-F4(BB+5), COD@NOSC(5), TETRA@NOSC,
    NPRDC(BB+3), NRL-AIC, NRL-CSS, NSWC-WO(2), NTA-VAX(BB+2), NTSC-74,
    NUSC, NYU, NYU-CSD2, OAK.SAINET.MFENET@LLL-MFE, MDC@OFFICE-1, OMNILAX,
    ORNL-MSR(BB+1), OSLO-VAX, PAXRV-NES, PURDUE, RADC-MULTICS,
    RADC-TOPS20, RAND-UNIX(BB+1), RDG.AM.UTS@UCL-CS, RIACS, RICE,
    ROCHESTER(3), RUTGERS(BB+1), SAIL(BB+3), SAN.SAINET.MFENET@LLL-MFE,
    SANDIA-CAD, SCRC-STONY-BROOK(5), SECKENHEIM-EMH, SIMTEL20,
    SRI-AI(BB+6), SRI-CSL, SRI-KL(19), SRI-NIC(BB+1), SRI-SPAM,
    SRI-TSC(3), SRN-VAX, STL-HOST1, SU-AMADEUS@SU-SCORE, SU-CSLI(BB+1),
    SU-GSB-HOW(2), SUMEX(BB+3), SU-PSYCH(3), SU-SCORE(BB+8),
    SU-SIERRA(BB+2), SU-SUSHI(4), SYMBOLICS(2), TKOV02.DEC@DECWRL, UCBKIM,
    UCL-CS(BB+1), CAMJENNY@UCL-CS, UK.AC.EDINBURGH@UCL-CS(2),
    RLGM@UCL-CS(3), UCLA-LOCUS(BB+2), UCSD, UDEL, A.CS.UIUC.EDU,
    MIMSY.UMD.EDU, VAX.NR.UNINETT@NTA-VAX, VAX.RUNIT.UNIT.UNINETT@NTA-VAX(3),
    USC-ECL, USC-ISI(8), USC-ISIB(BB+5), USC-ISIF(6), UTAH-20(BB+2),
    UTEXAS-20, WASHINGTON(4), WHARTON-10(2), WHITNEY, WISC-AI,
    WISC-CRYS(5), WISC-GUMBY, WISC-PIPE, WISC-RSCH(2), WISCVM,
    WPAFB-INFO1, WPAFB-AFITA, WSMR04, WSMR06, XEROX, YALE

    CSNet:
    BGSU, BOSTONU(3), BRANDEIS, BROWN, BUFFALO, CLEMSON(3), COLGATE,
    COLOSTATE, DEPAUL, GATECH, GERMANY, GMR(12), GTE-LABS(2), HP-BRONZE,
    HP-LABS, SJRLVM1%IBM-SJ, WLVM1%IBM-SJ, IRO.UDEM.CDN%UBC,
    CSKAIST%KAIST(2), LOSANGEL%IBM-SJ, LSU, NMSU(2), NORTHEASTERN(11),
    OKSTATE, PITT, RPICS, SCAROLINA(3), SMU(BB+1), SPERRY-RESTON, TAMU,
    SPY%TEKTRONIX, TEKCHIPS%TEKTRONIX, TEKIG5%TEKTRONIX, TEKGVS%TEKTRONIX,
    TEKLDS%TEKTRONIX, TENNESSEE, CSL60%TI-CSL(BB+1), TI-EG, UTAI%TORONTO,
    TUFTS, UBC, UCF-CS, UCI, UCSC, UIOWA(BB+1), ARCHEBIO%UIUC,
    UIUCDCSB%UIUC, ULOWELL(2), UMASS-CS, UMN-CS, UNC, UPENN, VIRGINIA,
    VPI, WWU(2), YKTVMV@IBM-SJ(7)

    BITNET@WISCVM:
    BOSTONU(2), BROWNVM, BUCASA, BUCKNELL, CARLETON, CBEBDA3T, CGEUGE51,
    CUNYVM(2), CZHRZU1A, DB0TUI11, DBNGMD21, DBNRHRZ1(2), DBSTU1,
    DDATHD21, DDATHD21, DHDURZ2(2), HNYKUN52, HNYKUN53, HWALHW5, ICNUCEVM,
    IDUI1, IPACUC, ISRAEARN, NJECNVM, NSNCCVM, RYERSON(2), SBBIOVM,
    SLACVM.WISC.EDU, SUCASE, UCF1VM(2), UCONNVM, UHUPVM1, UKCC(2), ULKYVX,
    UMCVMB, VTVM1, WISDOM, WSUVM1

    BITNET@BERKELEY:
    CORNELLA(2), HLERUL5, UTCVM(2), VPIVM2, WESLYN

    Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS:
    Grinnell, NJIT-EIES, RPI-MTS, UMich-MTS, VANDERBILT

    Usenet Paths:
    bellcore@BERKELEY,
    franz@BERKELEY,
    ucscc@BERKELEY,
    sdcsvax!sdamos!crash@NOSC,
    mcvax!inria!imag!csinn@SEISMO.CSS.GOV,
    dec-rhea!dec-gvaic3@DECWRL,
    mcvax!enea!erix@SEISMO
    mcvax!cernvax!ethz@SEISMO.CSS.GOV,
    packard!ihesa@SEISMO.CSS.GOV,
    mcvax!ircam@SEISMO.CSS.GOV,
    mcvax!inria!lasso@SEISMO.CSS.GOV,
    mcvax!cernvax!unizh@SEISMO,
    tflop@SU-SHASTA,
    vitesse!vec←j@S1-C

This includes something like 35 government and military sites, 15
national laboratories and research institutes, 55 companies and
nonprofit corporations, and 100 universities around the world.
That's just the direct mailings; my thanks to the many people who
have established and maintained local bboards and remailers.

About a year ago I began to worry that the international nature of the
list might violate President Reagan's directives concerning
unclassified technical (export restricted) and unclassified national
security-related (UNS-R) information.  (The list goes to Canada,
Britain, Australia, West Germany, Norway, the Netherlands,
Switzerland, Japan, South Korea, etc.  Readers in these countries have
also contributed to the list, of course.).  I sent out some queries
and received a great deal of informed discussion, but there were no
firm precedents for determining whether we were headed for trouble.
The whole file is available for those who want it; just write to
AIList-Request@SRI-AI.ARPA.  I have attempted, at least four times, to
summarize the material, but have been unable to do so without losing
the critical context of each opinion.  The policy I have settled on
(subject to revision) is the following:

  AIList is a public information service provided to the Arpanet
  community and others though my own efforts, indirect support from
  my company, and the help of numerous individuals and organizations
  at other sites.  Readers are advised not to submit any material
  that is export controlled or classified.  As moderator, I must
  assume that individuals have obtained all required clearances for
  their submissions to the list and for the university bboard messages
  that AIList occasionally reprints.  The export control laws are both
  broad and vague, but material that could be published in news magazines
  or publicly available scientific journals is probably safe.  Scientific
  information "without engineering or military significance" is always
  permissible, but technical details of specific military or government-
  controlled systems should not be discussed in this forum.

I would also like to point out that, in my own opinion, technology transfer
via informed discussion and incremental question/answer exchanges can be
far more effective than by flooding a channel with printed technical material.
Indeed, that is the very reason for AIList's existence -- to put people in
touch with those who can help them the most.  Readers at government-supported
sites should keep in mind that any exchanges of reports or technical data
resulting from "friendly contacts" on the AIList are their own responsibility,
and that care should be taken when communicating over unsecure channels or
with unknown individuals.

For those participants who regard the above as paranoid, I apologize for
any offense.  The critical decisions concerning U.S. policy and network
policy are not mine to make; I merely interpret them as best I can.  I am
comfortable with the level of exchange that AIList has promoted, and
grateful for the broad participation that has made the list such a success.

                                        -- Dr. Kenneth I. Laws
                                           Computer Scientist
                                           SRI International

------------------------------

Date: Fri 3 Jan 86 23:39:12-EST
From: "Daniel F. Lane" <GZT.LANE@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Wargamers!

           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


 To anyone interested in wargames, or strategy games in general, myself and
SWF at OZ are starting a wargamers mailing list.  Discuss the latest games
out on the market, etc.  Also, as soon as we get it all organized (if?)  we
will be running a game over the net called "Battle for North America" or,
"The Second Battle-Between-the-States" (whichever you prefer).  But,  more
about that after we get the group rolling.  Send any addition requests to:
WAR-GAMES-REQUEST%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.   Thanks,  Daniel Lane (GZT.LANE@OZ)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 2 Jan 86 17:10 EST
From: Kurt Godden <godden%gmr.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Computer Othello Tournament

I received an announcement in the mail and am passing it along to ailist
out of the goodness of my heart.  I am not connected in any way with the
tournament (other than as an entrant):

         1986 North American Computer Othello Championship Tournament

Host:         CS Association at California State University, Northridge
When:         February 15-16, 1986.
Where:        Cal State campus in Northridge (LA area)
Sanctioned by:U.S. Othello Association

From flier: "...an eight-round, Swiss-style event with awards for the winners,
            and is open to computers of all makes, models, and sizes.
            Participation from programmers anywhere in the world is welcome;
            entrants need not be present, as they may play via phone or submit
            software and/or hardware to be run by volunteer representatives."

For detailed info you are requested to contact
  1) North American Computer Othello Championship
     CSUN Computer Science Association
     School of Engineering, Box 31
     18111 Nordhoff Street
     Northridge, CA 91330
  2) Brian Swift or Marc Furon (apparently pronounced ['fju ren] -KG) at
     213-852-5096

Please don't contact me.
-Kurt Godden

p.s. Presumably it's necessary or at least polite to note that 'Othello'
     is a registered trademark of CBS Toys.

------------------------------

Date: Mon 6 Jan 86 07:17:05-EST
From: "Fred Hapgood" <SIDNEY.G.HAPGOOD@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: computer chess tutor

        Would anybody know who might be thinking about
tutor/annotator functions in chess computers?

        The simplest imaginable computer chess tutor might work like
this: After one had played a game against it one would indicate
the moves one wished to see annotated. The machine would retrieve
the positions in that range on which you had the move. For each
it would run its evaluation routine to see what move it would
have made had it been playing.  It would then score both (a) the
position resulting from your move and (b) that resulting from the
move generated by its own routine. This done, it would move on to
the next move in the series and repeat the procedure.  One could
of course enter an entire score, perhaps from a newspaper, and
have the computer perform this function for the moves of both
sides.

        When the list was exhausted the machine would find all the
cases in which the evaluator routine scored a difference between
(a) and (b) of more than a defined amount. It would then display
these cases either by replaying the game and stopping at the
points found, or in order of greatest disparity, i.e., biggest
blunder first. In either case display would consist of: (i) the
original position, (ii) the move actually made, and (iii) the
improvement claimed by the machine, together with a short list of
the best subsequent moves for both sides.

        This is only the simplest instance of how a machine might
comment on a position or 'explain' itself.

        From a marketing point of view, one virtue of these devices
is that tutors can never get too strong. A person buying a chess
computer as a opponent is likely to drop out of the market for
new versions once the machines have gotten strong enough to be a
challenge.  What is being sold in an annotator is authority, and
one can never get enough of that. In fact, it is possible that as
chess computers improve, the forces driving that market will
shift from using chess computers as calculators to using them as
annotators.

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂08-Jan-86  1228	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #2 
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 8 Jan 86  12:28:44 PST
Date: Wed  8 Jan 1986 08:57-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #2
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Wednesday, 8 Jan 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 2

Today's Topics:
  Corrections - Feigenbaum's Comments & Xerox Reader Count,
  Query - AI Paradigm,
  Review - Stanford SDI Debate (12/19)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun 29 Dec 85 22:18:33-PST
From: Edward Feigenbaum <FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: re the news report on my speech in the Netherlands

Saw my name in the Fri 27 Dec. 1985 AIList Digest V3 #192.
Since it's best not to let silly things propagate, let me say
here what I said (I actually said many many things; I don't understand
why those few things were picked out).

I said that among the most commercially important applications of
expert systems in the next ten years would be factory management
applications and financial service applications. (I didn't even
mention factory automation).

I said that speech understanding applications would become economically
very important. (I never mentioned speech generation.)

Best wishes for a journalistically accurate New Year (fat chance),

Ed Feigenbaum

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jan 86 16:22 PST
From: Newman.pasa@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: Reader Count

I don't know if you want to post this to the net or not, but in the
interest of accuracy, Xerox has approximately 248 readers of the AIList.

>>Dave

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, 7 January 1986 02:19:31 EST
From: Duvvuru.Sriram@cive.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: AI Paradigm

I have seen the word "AI Paradigm" in several papers/reports.  My dictionary
[Random House] says that a Paradigm is either an example or a model. Is
there any other meaning to it or is it just a better word for  "example"?

Sriram

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 85 11:55:37 pst
From: jrisberg@aids-unix (Jeff Risberg)
Subject: Stanford SDI debate (12/19) summary

The following is a somewhat long summary of the technical debate on SDI
entitled "SDI:  How Feasible, How Useful, How Robust?" that was held at
Stanford on December 19th.  Since this debate was announced on AILIST,
we felt that readers would be interested in this summary.

  [I was reluctant to permit the initial announcement and I am reluctant
  to permit the summary.  I have decided to forward them because SDI
  may well involve major funding in the area of AI.  Please restrict any
  discussion in AIList to the areas of AI, pattern recognition, or the
  feasibility of distributed decision making.  Political discussions
  would be more appropriate on Arms-D@MIT-MC, Risks@SRI-NIC, or
  perhaps Space@MIT-MC. -- KIL]


The panelists at the debate were:

Advocates:
Professor Richard Lipton, Professor of Computer Science at Princeton
University, current member of SDIO's Panel on Computing and Support of Battle
Management.

Major Simon Peter Worden, the Special Assistant to the Director of the SDIO
and Technical Advisor to the Nuclear and Space Arms Talk with the USSR
in Geneva.

Opponents:
Dr. Richard L. Garwin, IBM Fellow and Adjunct Professor of Physics at
Columbia University, Physicist and Defense Consultant.

Professor David Parnas, Lansdown Professor of Computer Science at the
University of Victoria, former member of the SDI Organization's
Panel on Computing and Support of Battle Management.


Dr. Goldberger, President of CalTech, served as the moderator of the
discussion.  He presented a bit of history relating to the subject of
defensive warfare and then allowed the panelists to speak.  There are
certainly historical precedents for defensive systems, in fact, each US
leader since the 1950's has sought a defense.  SDI is simply the largest
scale and most visible concept to date.

Because of the complexity of the issue, a question like "can it work?"
can only be answered by determining 'what does "can" mean?', 'what does
"it" mean?', and 'what does "work" mean?'.  There have been various
justifications proposed for SDI, and the technical and political
community has raised numerous questions.

The format of the debate consisted of three sections:  during the first
section, each speaker was allowed 20 minutes with which to present his
case; following that, each speaker had a 5-minute rebuttal period;
finally, the audience was allowed to ask questions via screened 3 x 5
index cards.


Major Worden spoke first and discussed some positive aspects of SDI.  In
his view, the principal justification is for Arms Control.  In that
view, a major goal is that the SDI system have a lower marginal cost
than that of building additional offensive systems.  Survivability is
another goal.

He said that the object of SDIO is to establish the feasibility of the
system, but not to build it.  Similarly, it may not involve space
weapons, although most of the current concepts include a space segment.
We would also like to get the Soviets to admit their own work in such
systems.  They regularly deny such work, but when we show them ariel
photos of their high-power lasers, they say, "Oh, we do have laser
research for medical purposes".

The numerical aspects of a Defensive Reliant Deterance are that each
layer of defense drives the number of offensive warheads needed up
further.  There are a series of layers, with each layer consisting of
sensors, weapons, and battle management systems.  He showed some of the
standard slides of this design.  The concept is "Proliferated and
Distributed".  They are planning for the late 1990's.

The key issue as he sees it is countermeasures, such as the fast burn
booster.  There are three types of threats and five types of
countermeasures.  He expected that countermeasures will develop much as
aircraft gained shielding, speed, and proliferation countermeasures
after WW I.

He gave a cost context of the project in comparison to the cost of
insurance in the private sector.  The cost of insurance is over $300
billion/year, while the SDI work is currently costing $1.5 billion.
Major Worden admitted that President Reagan caught everyone off guard
with his speech about SDI two years ago.


Dr. Garwin spoke next.  He recommended that we think carefully about
just what are the goals, costs, and likely Soviet Response to SDI.  He
said that the Scowcroft Commission reported that U.S. security could be
maintained without SDI.  His opinion is that while SDI has been proposed
to replace deterrance, it is really simply another form of deterrance.

He is concerned with the layered approach of the system in that there is
catastrophic failure if one layer does not do its job.  For example, the
design of each layer assumes that the prior one does its job in reducing
the number of incoming objects.

Examples of potential areas of failure were given:  space mines could
easily knock out any space segment units and midcourse intercept could
be overwhelmed by large numbers of decoys.  Dr. Garwin feels that the
systems needed for SDI can not be built under the ABM treaty.

There has been a progression of goals, and in effect "replace deterance"
has become "strengthen deterance".

He closed by describing his view of a viable strategic balance, which
would be to limit each side to 1000 warheads, deployed on small
missiles, small subs, and cruise missiles, with no counterforce threats
against strategic targets.  Preserve the ADM treaty.  BMD research may
be continued, in order to confirm that there is no threat to the system.


Dr. Lipton was the next speaker.  He joined the technical panel of SDIO
last summer.  (An interesting point is that Dr. Lipton is a former
student of Dr. Parnas.)  His major focus was in the importance of the
de-centralization of software.  The Fletcher panel design was centralized,
with software in charge of everything.  "Is it possible to build a system
without these problems?"  Discussion of feasibility must encompass all
design possibilities, and Lipton stressed the merits of a decentralized
design.

He led into this by an analogy with the banking industry.  Banking works
because it is a large collection of loosely organized components.

In the SDI example, he refered to large numbers of satellite groups
handling independent battle management functions.  Fault tolerance would
provide reliability, like the concept of the strategic weapons triad.
He argued that these seperate groups would be testable, by putting a few
into orbit and shooting missiles at them.

The false alarm problem could be controlled by activating different
numbers of systems.  Coordination problems were raised by the Fletcher
panel toward a goal of conserving "bullets".  Dr. Lipton's studies
indicated that the shot overhead of low coordination is not that high.


Dr. Parnas spoke last.  He had good points in his speech, but had a
problem with becoming quite caustic in his remarks about the SDIO
members.  He said that (loosely quoted) "I used to feel that arms
control people are guilty of wishful thinking, but I have now seen a
whole new standard."  His major complaint against SDI is that SDI forces
us to trust the system; if SDI need not be perfect, it must at least be
trustworthy, and he feels that this is not possible.

Conditions for validation include:  mathematical analysis,
                                    exhaustive case analysis,
                                 or prolonged, realistic testing.
Even after one or more of these conditions have been met, the system
must still be operated under controlled conditions.

The validation of software is inherently different from the standard
engineering problems such as bridge design.  Something different about
software.  It is made up of discrete, rather than continuous functions.
Thus design principles such as building for twice the weight do not
truly apply, but instead, the number of discrete cases must be
examined, along with thorough testing.  Even after a number of years of
use, bugs may still be found.  True testing requires thousands of years.

For most software, we can allow unreliable software, as long as we trust
it.  For SDI, we cannot.

He doesn't believe that de-centralization provides added trustworthiness
to the system.  He stated that he never took the Fletcher design
seriously in the first place, feeling it that was no more than a rough
sizing of the problem.  There are a series of myths around
de-centralization.

Dr. Parnas' final point is that SDI is not a limit of computers, but of
human beings.


The rebuttals were then held.  Major Worden questioned the meaning of
deterence and then mentioned some possible alternatives to SDI:
automatic launch under attack, preventive attacks, and bombs under U.S.
cities.  He indicated that Dr. Garwin had shown only that he could design
a system that SDIO wouldn't buy.  His final comment re-iterated the
linkage of SDI to the arms control process.

Dr. Garwin (and the others) kept mentioning the Scowcroft report which
produced possible defensive measures other than SDI.  Dr. Garwin pointed
out that Dr. Lipton had only found that the system proposed by Fletcher
might not work, but that Lipton believed others might.  In any case, so
long as Soviets can deliver by other means (cruise missiles), we will
continue to need deterance.

Dr. Lipton restated his belief in the need for independent
systems.  He recognized that nothing is perfect, that even computers
are not reliable, but they are used on a daily basis.  The use of
independent battle stations would stress the sensors, but he argued
that teraflops would alleviate the need for independent views.

Dr. Parnas again made a couple of inappropriate shots..."I've
been to a lot of Mickey Mouse meetings, but the ones sponsored by SDI
had the biggest ears and biggest nose I've ever seen."  He thinks that
the idea of separate systems does not remove the size or complexity of
what is needed; dividing 10 million lines of code into small modules of
1000 lines does still not ensure error-free code.  People do not write
independent code.

Questions raised from the floor asked about different types of lasers,
the time to phase-in to SDI, and about the non-ICBM threat.  Worden
replied that cruise missiles are not strategic weapons because of their
flight time, and that smuggling bombs into the US would not be a realistic
approach for a Soviet leader to taken.

The speakers then made closing comments:

Dr. Garwin said that we currently have a real opportunity for arms
reduction.  This would be much more survivable than continued escalation
and research into defensive weaponry.  He feels that both sides should
abandon defense efforts.  Control of nuclear proliferation is essential.

Major Worden agreed with these points of Dr. Garwin, but said that it is
necessary and vital to carry forward a defensive program within the ABM
treaty to provide a different kind of security.

Dr. Parnas said that in software, the engineering term of "tolerance"
depends on continuity.  "Almost right" does not make sense in the
context of SDI.  He fears espionage that would result in someone getting
a copy of the software.  Reasons for not going ahead with SDI anyway
include the lost opportunity for other projects, low quality of results,
and weakening of the strategic position.

Dr. Lipton said that if the independent segments of the SDI system do
not interact, the code is not vulnerable.  He pointed out that there
are simple systems, such as elevators, that we do trust.

Dr. Goldberger then made some closing comments.  He said that strategic
defense and arms control must be approached seriously.  The laws of
physics are immune to political views and we are currently at a critical
political point.  A decision to push forward defensively without a
reduction in offense would be a mistake.  SDI has been proposed as part
of current moves toward lowering threat of destruction, yet it is
difficult, with verification problems, and major risks.  He hopes that
the human spirit will prevail in the decisions that must be made.


In summary, the debate was quite interesting, although inconclusive if
judged in a strict manner.  We were most surprised that software
technical details were hardly mentioned, and that political and non
computer technology issues were the focus of the discussion.  Dr. Parnas
and Dr. Lipton made several comments against each other, which detracted
from the technical discussion.  It didn't appear that Dr. Lipton was
overly familiar with the SDI problems; he continually talked in
generalities, with few facts with which to back up his statements.  Dr.
Garwin and Major Worden were much more prepared in their talks and
didn't take any cheap shots with which to score points with the
audience.


The comments above are strictly our personal opinions and not
representative of any organization.

Jeff Risberg     (jrisberg@aids-unix)
Susan Rosenbaum  (susan@aids-unix)

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂12-Jan-86  0022	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #3 
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Jan 86  00:22:44 PST
Date: Sat 11 Jan 1986 22:13-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #3
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Sunday, 12 Jan 1986        Volume 4 : Issue 3

Today's Topics:
  Bindings - AI-Related Lists,
  Definition - Paradigm,
  Logic - New CSLI Reports,
  Reviews - Spang Robinson Report 2/1 &
    Rational Agency Seminars (CSLI)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri 10 Jan 86 12:18:09-PST
From: Christopher Schmidt <SCHMIDT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: AI-Related Lists


[...]

To add to your list of AIList-related lists, Info-1100@SUMEX and
Bug-1100@SUMEX are DL's concerning the Xerox 1100 series lisp machines
and Interlisp, and Info-TI-Explorer@SUMEX and Bug-TI-Explorer@SUMEX are
DL's concerning the TI Explorers and associated software.

--Christopher

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 8 Jan 86 16:38:34 EST
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@bbncch.ARPA>
Subject: paradigm

The term paradigm was specialized in philosophy of science by Thomas Kuhn in
his 1965(?) book ←The←Structure←of←Scientific←Revolutions and subsequent
works.  I would question whether AI is a mature enough
field to have a paradigm in the sense that Kuhn intends for a mature science.
Instead, there appears to be a fair selection of more or less divergent
examples/models/agendas for each area of investigation.  Many of these are
associated with the more prominent investigators in AI.


        Bruce Nevin
        bn@bbncch.arpa

        BBN Communications
        33 Moulton Street
        Cambridge, MA 02238
        (617) 497-3992

[Disclaimer:  my opinions may reflect those of many, but no one else
need take responsibility for them, including my employer.]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1986  19:37 EST
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #2

about "paradigm" -- the dictionary is out of date because this word
now almost universally refers to the notion in Thomas Kuhn's
"Structure of Scientific Revolutions."  It seems to mean powerful and
influential idea, or something.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Jan 86 11:04:40 GMT
From: Mmaccall%cs.ucl.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Re: AI Paradigm

An approximate meaning for the word `paradigm' is `template'.

Gordon Joly
gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Jan 86 16:53:46 GMT
From: Mmaccall%cs.ucl.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Re: AI Paradigm

As an afterthought. The place where I first saw the term "paradigm"
was in "Games People Play" by Eric Berne. Here, he has a model of the
(transactional) relationship between two people, with three states of
parent-adult-child. They are then put side by side with the parent above
adult and the adult above child, each being represented by a circle. Lines
are drawn to indicate which relationships are active in a given "game".
The Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, as well as the Random House, gives
the notion of "side by side". I hope this has a meaning for the "AI Paradigm"!

Gordon Joly,
gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa

------------------------------

Date: Thu 9 Jan 86 12:09:33-PST
From: Wilkins  <WILKINS@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Paradigm

Your dictionary is correct about "paradigm".   This word has been used
extensively in the Ai literature in an incorrect way.  People incorrectly
use it to mean "methodology" or "school of thought" or some such.
David

------------------------------

Date: Thu 9 Jan 86 15:29:34-PST
From: Michael Walker <WALKER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: ai paradigm?

        If you have a paradigm, there's always a chance that you'll get a
paradigm shift, in which case people will fund your research for the next
20 years. On the other hand, if you say your example shifts, they'll think
you're fudging your data.

                        Mike

------------------------------

Date: Wed 8 Jan 86 16:53:32-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: New CSLI Reports on Logic


                            NEW CSLI REPORTS

     Report No. CSLI-85-41, ``Possible-world Semantics for Autoepistemic
   Logic'' by Robert C. Moore and Report No.  CSLI-85-42, ``Deduction
   with Many-Sorted Rewrite'' by Jose Meseguer and Joseph A. Goguen, have
   just been published.  These reports may be obtained by writing to
   Trudy Vizmanos, CSLI, Ventura Hall, Stanford, CA 94305 or
   Trudy@SU-CSLI.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Jan 86 17:28:42 cst
From: Laurence Leff <leff%smu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Spang Robinson Report, Volume 2 No 1


Summary of Spang Robinson Report, Volume 2 Number 1, January 1986
featuring AI Hardware

Vendors state that the biggest problem in marketing AI hardware
is educating both internal people and the market place.

An interview with a gentleman who evaluated AI type machines for use
in developing software for silicon compilation research at Philips
Labs.

Discussion of various ways to enhance IBM PC's for AI (or other
development needs) and the use of the Macintosh and Commodore's Amiga
for AI research.

C. J. Petrie of MCC described a system to parse text from a "how to"
book into rules.

Interview with Dag Tellefsen of Glenwood Management, a venture
capitalist.  They have funded Natural Language Products and AION.

Kurzweil Applied Intelligence, that develops voice recognition hardware,
has signed a joint marketing agreement with FutureNet which supplies
electronic engineering work stations.

Reasoning Systems has signed an agreement with Lockheed Missiles and
Space Corporation to develop knowledge based systems for
communications.  (Reasoning Systems is involved with the commercialization
of some of the techniques from the University of Southern California work
in automating software development.  See the IEEE Transactions on
Software Engineering November 1985 Special Issue on AI and Software
Engineering for more info.)

"Logicware Inc. and Releations Ltd., both in Canada, have signed a
long-term agreement to design an Artificial Intelligence language
leading to a computer system which will emulate the thinking process
of the human brain.  It will be  the first AI language designed for
vector-processing by a super computer."

Composition Systems has released two Artificial Intelligence kit that
links VAX Lisp with such DEC product as FMS, RDB, GKS and DECNET."

Review of the IEEE Computer Society Second Conference on Artificial
Intelligence.


------------------------------

Date: Wed 8 Jan 86 16:53:32-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Review - Rational Agency Seminars (CSLI)

         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                          RATIONAL AGENCY GROUP
                        Summary of Fall 1985 Work

      The fall-quarter meetings of the Rational Agency Group (alias
   RatAg) have focused on the question: what must the architecture of a
   rational agent with serious resource limitations look like?  Our
   attempts to get at answers to this question have been of two kinds.
   One approach has been to consider problems in providing a coherent
   account of human rationality.  Specifically, we have discussed a
   number of philosophically motivated puzzles, such as the case of the
   Double Pinball Machine, and the problem of the Strategic Bomber,
   presented in a series of papers by Michael Bratman.  The second
   approach we have taken has been to do so-called robot psychology.
   Here, we have examined existing AI planning systems, such as the PRS
   system of Mike Georgeff and Amy Lansky, in an attempt to determine
   whether, and, if so, how these systems embody principles of rationality.

   Both approaches have led to the consideration of similar issues:

   1) What primitive components must there be in an account of
      rationality?  From a philosophical perspective, this is
      equivalent to asking what the set of primitive mental states
      must be to describe human rationality; from an AI perspective,
      this is equivalent to asking what the set of primitive mental
      operators must be to build an artificial agent who behaves
      rationally.  We have agreed that the philospher's traditional
      2-parameter model, containing just ``beliefs'' and ``desires'',
      is insufficient; we have further agreed that adding just a third
      parameter, say ``intentions'', is still not enough.  We are
      still considering whether a 4-parameter model, which includes a
      parameter we have sometimes called ``operant desires'', is
      sufficient.  These so-called operant desires are medial between
      intentions and desires in that, like the former (but not the
      latter) they control behavior in a rational agent, but like the
      latter (and not the former) they need not be mutually consistent
      to satisfy the demands of rationality.  The term ``goal'', we
      discovered in passing, has been used at times to mean
      intentions, at times desires, at times operant desires, and at
      times other things; we have consequently banished it from our
      collective lexicon.

   2) What are ``plans'', and how do they fit into a theory of
      rationality?  Can they be reduced to some configuration of
      other, primitive mental states, or must they also be introduced
      as a primitive?

   3) What are the combinatorial properties of these primitive
      components within a theory of rationality, i.e., how are they
      interrelated and how do they affect or control action?  We have
      considered, e.g., whether a rational agent can intend something
      without believing it will happen, or not intend something she
      believes will inevitably happen.  One set of answers to these
      questions that we have considered has come from the theory of
      plans and action being developed by Michael Bratman.  Another
      set has come come from work that Phil Cohen has been doing with
      Hector Levesque, which involves explaining speech acts as a
      consequence of rationality.  These two theories diverge on many
      points: Cohen and Levesque, for instance, are committed to the
      view that if a rational agent believes something to be inevitable,
      he also intends it; Bratman takes the opposite view.  In recent
      meetings, interesting questions have arisen about whether there
      can be beliefs about the future that are `not' beliefs that
      something will inevitably happen, and, if so, whether
      concomitant intentions are guaranteed in a rational agent.

      The RatAg group intends to begin the new quarter by considering how
   Cohen and Levesque's theory can handle the philosphical problems
   discussed in Bratman's work.  We will also be discussing the work of
   Hector-Neri Castaneda in part to explore the utility of Castaneda's
   distinction between propositions and practitions for our work on
   intention, belief and practical rationality.  Professor Castaneda will
   be giving a CSLI colloquium in the spring.
      RatAg participants this quarter have been Michael Bratman (project
   leader), Phil Cohen, Todd Davies, Mike Georgeff, David Israel, Kurt
   Konolige, Amy Lansky, and Martha Pollack.            --Martha Pollack

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂12-Jan-86  0225	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #4 
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Jan 86  02:25:37 PST
Date: Sat 11 Jan 1986 22:28-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #4
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Sunday, 12 Jan 1986        Volume 4 : Issue 4

Today's Topics:
  Seminars - Organization of Semantic Knowledge Systems (MIT) &
    LISP architectures (NASA Ames) &
    Computational Networks in Silicon and Biology (PARC),
  Course - Values, Technology, and Society (SU) &
    Highly Parallel Architectures for AI (UPenn),
  Conference - 3rd Symposium on Logic Programming

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun,  5 Jan 86 03:44:31 EST
From: "Steven A. Swernofsky" <SASW@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Seminar - Categorical Organization of Semantic Knowledge Systems (MIT)

Monday  2, December  4: 00-6:00pm  Room: E25-117

  HARVARD UNIVERSITY-MIT DIVISION OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY

   "The Categorical Organization of Semantic Knowledge Systems"

                 Elizabeth K. Warrington
                 Professor of Neurology
                 The National Hospitals for Nervous Diseases
                 Queen Square, London

Patients with cerebral lesions provide an important source of evidence
about the organization of semantic systems.  Striking instances of the
selective preservation and selective impairment in the comprehension
of particular categories of verbal and visual stimuli have long been
reported in the neurological literature and more recently such
dissociations have been investigated and assessed using experimental
methods.  The issue of modality specificity will be discussed and it
will be argued that there are at least partially independent systems
that subserve verbal and visual semantics.  Evidence for both broad
category specific impairments, such as knowledge of concrete and
abstract concepts, and more fine grain category impairments such as
knowledge of animate and inanimate objects  will be reviewed.  It will
be argued that there  are modality specific semantic systems and that
these are categorised in their organization.

Host: Lucia Vaina

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Jan 86 07:58:25 pst
From: eugene@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Seminar - LISP architectures (NASA Ames)


National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Ames Research Center
          SEMINAR ANNOUNCEMENT

        Computational Research Branch

SPEAKER: Raymond S. Lim
         Computational Research Branch

TOPIC: LISP Machine Architectures of MIT CADR, Symbolics 3600, & TI Explorer

ABSTRACT: Common LISP is becoming a standard, and MULTI-LISP is
contemplating for parallel LISP Processing.  A modern LISP machine is a
conventional virtual memory, Von Neuman machine with addded hardware to
support runtime data type checking and incremental garbage collection.  This
presentation will discuss the architecture issue of LISP machine, starting
from the MIT CADR.

DATE: 23 Jan 1986       TIME: 9:30-11:00        BLDG: 233       ROOM: 172

POINT OF CONTACT: Becky Getz            PHONE NUMBER: (415)-694-5197

VISITORS ARE WELCOME: Register and obtain vehicle pass at Ames Visitor
Reception Building (N-253) or the Security Station near Gate 18.  See map
below.  Do not use the Navy Main Gate.

Non-citizens (except Permanent Residents) must have prior approval from the
Director's Office one week in advance.  Submit requests to the point of
contact indicated above.  Non-citizens must register at the Visitor
Reception Building.  Permanent Residents are required to show Alien
Registration Card at the time of registration.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jan 86 14:27:59 PST (Friday)
From: Kluger.osbunorth@Xerox.ARPA
Reply-to: Kluger.osbunorth@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: Seminar - Computational Networks in Silicon and Biology (PARC)


          Xerox Palo Alto Research Center Forum


                Thursday, January 16, 1986
                4:00 pm, PARC Auditorium


                      J.J. Hopfield

                Divisions of Chemistry and Biology
                        Caltech
                          and
                AT&T Bell Laboratories

                      will speak on

       Computational Networks in Silicon and Biology


The brain as a piece of computer hardware violates most of the sensible
design criteria for good computers, yet manages to be extremely
effective. We investigate the kinds of behavior which circuits built in
a neuronal fashion--emphasizing large connectivity, large size, analog
response, and self-timed--naturally have.

The collective properties of such systems lead naturally to the
behaviors needed for associative memory, or pattern recognition, error
decoding, visual information processing and many complex optimization
problems.

At the same time, the circuits are relatively robust (fail soft), like
their biological relatives. Such circuits may be of use as high density
associative memories and as signal processors. The effectiveness of
biological computation may in part result from the use of the collective
decision capabilities of neural networks.


This Forum is OPEN. All are invited.

Host: Larry Kluger (Information Systems Division, 496-6575)

Refreshments will be served at 3:45 pm

Visitors: Welcome! The PARC Auditorium is located at 3333 Coyote Hill
Road. The street is between Page Mill Road (west of Foothill) and
Hillview Avenue, in the Stanford Research Park, Palo Alto. Enter the
building through the *auditorium's* entrance, at the upper level of the
building.

------------------------------

Date: 03 Jan 86  1404 PST
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Course - Values, Technology, and Society (SU)

         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


The following course will be given by John McCarthy in Winter 1986 in
the Values, Technology and Society program.  As will be noticed from
the description, it will emphasize opportunities rather than problems.
It will meet 14:15-15:30 Tuesdays and Thursdays
in room 202 History corner (bldg 200).


Technological Possibilities for enhancing man

        This course surveys the technological possibilities for increasing
human capability and real wealth.  It is oriented toward what people will
want rather than around what we might think is good for them.  Some of the
improvements discussed are in the direction of (1) making housework
trivial (2) making government responsive (3) increasing the ability of one
person to build an object like a car, airplane or house to suit him
without organizing others (4) allowing groups to live as they prefer less
hindered by general social laws and customs.  We will emphasize computer
and information technology and ask what will be genuinely useful about
computers in the home and not just faddish or flashy.  To what extent are
futurists and science fiction writers given to systematic error?  Can we
envisage advances as important as electricity, telephones, running water,
inside toilets?

        The second topic concerns the social factors that determine the
rate of scientific and technological progress.  Why was scientific
advance a rare event until Galileo?  Why didn't non-Western cultures
break through into the era of organized scientific and technological
progress and why did it take Western culture so long?  Why isn't the
rate of progress faster today?  As examples, we shall inquire into
the obstacles that made cellular telephone systems and electronic
funds transfer take so long.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 8 Jan 86 16:33 EST
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Course - Highly Parallel Architectures for AI (UPenn)

From: Lokendra Shastri <Shastri@UPenn> on Wed  8 Jan 1986 at 15:44, 45 lines


                            COURSE ANNOUNCEMENT

     CIS704  Highly parallel architectures for Artificial Intelligence

PREREQUISITES: This is an advanced course in artificial intelligence. It
will be assumed that the participants are familiar with basic issues in AI.

DESCRIPTION: There is a growing interest in highly interconnected networks
of very simple processing elements. These networks are referred to as
Connectionist Networks and are playing an increasingly important role in
artificial intelligence and cognitive science.

This course is intended to discuss the motivation behind pursuing
"connectionism" and to survey the state of current research in this area. We
will review connectionist models of language understanding, parsing,
knowledge representation, limited inference, and learning, and compare the
connectionist approach to traditional AI approaches.

TEXTS: None. A reading list will be provided.

ASSIGNMENTS: Students will be expected to prepare a presentation of (or lead
a discussion on) a paper on the reading list. There will be two or three
assignments and a term paper.

PLACE: TB 309.  M, W 4:30-6:00

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 6 Jan 86 20:33:58 MST
From: keller@utah-cs.arpa (Bob Keller)
Subject: Conference - 3rd Symposium on Logic Programming

               [Forwarded from the Prolog Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                                    '86 SLP
                                Call for Papers
                     Third Symposium on Logic Programming

                    Sponsored by the IEEE Computer Society

                             September 21-25, 1986

                               Westin Hotel Utah
                              Salt Lake City, UT

The conference solicits papers  on all areas  of logic programming,  including,
but not confined to:

        Applications of logic programming
        Computer architectures for logic programming
        Databases and logic programming
        Logic programming and other language forms
        New language features
        Logic programming systems and implementation
        Parallel logic programming models
        Performance
        Theory

Please submit full papers, indicating accomplishments of substance and novelty,
and including appropriate citations of related work.  The suggested page  limit
is 25 double-spaced pages.  Send eight copies of your manuscript no later  than
15 March 1986 to:

                        Robert M. Keller
                        SLP '86 Program Chairperson
                        Department of Computer Science
                        University of Utah
                        Salt Lake City, UT 84112

Acceptances will be mailed by 30 April 1986.  Camera-ready copy will be due  by
30 June 1986.

Conference Chairperson                  Exhibits Chairperson
Gary Lindstrom, University of Utah      Ross Overbeek, Argonne National Lab.

Tutorials Chairperson                   Local Arrangements Chairperson
George Luger, University of New Mexico  Thomas C. Henderson, University of Utah

                          Program Committee

Francois Bancilhon, MCC                 William Kornfeld, Quintus Systems
John Conery, University of Oregon       Gary Lindstrom, University of Utah
Al Despain, U.C. Berkeley               George Luger, University of New Mexico
Herve Gallaire, ECRC, Munich            Rikio Onai, ICOT/NTT, Tokyo
Seif Haridi, SICS, Sweden               Ross Overbeek, Argonne National  Lab.
Lynette Hirschman, SDC, Paoli           Mark Stickel, SRI International
Peter Kogge, IBM, Owego                 Sten Ake Tarnlund, Uppsala University

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂12-Jan-86  0425	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #5 
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Jan 86  04:25:29 PST
Date: Sat 11 Jan 1986 22:36-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #5
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Sunday, 12 Jan 1986        Volume 4 : Issue 5

Today's Topics:
  Conferences - Intelligent Systems Symposium &
    Workshop on AI for Generic Avionics &
    Uncertainty and AI Workshop &
    User-System Interfaces Workshop &
    IFIP Conference on Knowledge and Data &
    2nd Expert Systems in Government, Re-Revised Version

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 January 1986 1412-EST
From: Peter Andrews@A.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Conference - Intelligent Systems Symposium

        An International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent
Systems (ISMIS'86) will be held October 23-25, 1986 in Knoxville,
Tennessee.  Papers are solicited in the following areas:
(1) Expert Systems
(2) Knowledge Representation
(3) Learning and Adaptive Systems
(4) Intelligent Databases
(5) Approximate Reasoning
(6) Logics for Artificial Intelligence
        Papers will be due on March 1, 1986, and papers which are
accepted will be published in the proceedings of the symposium.  A
copy of the Call for Papers is posted on my office door (WEH 7216),
and you can get a personal copy by sending a message to Zbigniew Ras
(ras%tennessee.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA).

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 86 17:52:17 est
From: Scott C McKay <scm%gitpyr%gatech.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Conference - Workshop on AI for Generic Avionics


                       AVIONICS LABORATORY WORKSHOP
                                    ON
               ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR GENERIC AVIONICS

                     Georgia Tech Research Institute
                             Atlanta, Georgia
                             March 26-28, 1986

     The Avionics Laboratory, located within the Air Force Wright
     Aeronautical Laboratories at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, is
     the primary organization responsible for planning and executing
     the Air Force basic research, exploratory and advanced
     development programs for aerospace avionics.  A current major
     focus of that program is to explore the applicability of
     artificial intelligence to many functional avionics domains.  The
     results have been very encouraging and we are convinced that AI
     will have significant future utility in aerospace vehicles.

     In order to plan for orderly, timely and expanded developments in
     AI, the Avionics Laboratory will be conducting a Workshop on
     Artificial Intelligence for Generic Avionics.  The overall
     objective is to identify the "key basic research issues" that
     constrain the future expanded applicability of artificial
     intelligence technology to avionics applications and to outline
     what research should be pursued to remove the constraints.  The
     workshop will be held at Georgia Tech Research Institute, Georgia
     Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia on March 26-28, 1986.
     The workshop is planned to be an intensive 3-day work session
     involving 35-40 (maximum) of the best researchers in the field.
     Attendance will be by invitation only.

     If you feel you could contribute significantly to the objectives
     of the workshop and are interested in attending, please contact
     either of the following by 20 Jan 86: Lawrence E. Porter (513)
     255-4415, AFWAL/GLXRA, Wright Patterson AFB, OH 45433-6543 or
     Michael Noviskey (513) 255-2713, same address.

     The mission of the Avionics Laboratory is broad and includes the
     primary areas of navigation, surveillance, reconnaissance,
     electromagnetic warfare, fire control, weapon delivery,
     communications, system architecture, information and signal
     processing and control, subsystem integration and supporting
     electronics, and software and electromagnetic device research and
     development.  This mission spans the spectrum from basic research
     to advanced development.  The emphasis of this workshop is being
     placed on the former.  I encourage you to plan to attend the
     workshop and participate in a stimulating AI basic research
     exchange with your peers.  I can assure you that the results will
     have a direct impact on future investment in AI basic research.

     Lawrence E. Porter
     Chairperson
     Artificial Intelligence Planning
     Avionics Laboratory

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 86 18:29:34 pst
From: gluck@SU-PSYCH (Mark Gluck)
Subject: Conference - Uncertainty and AI Workshop


                    CALL FOR PARTICIPATION

Second Workshop on:   "Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence"

     Philadelphia, PA.  August 9-11, 1986  (preceeding AAAI conf.)

Sponsored by:  AAAI and RCA


    This workshop is a follow-up to the successful workshop in L.A.,
August 1985.  Its subject is reasoning under uncertainty and
representing uncertain information.  The emphasis this year is on real
applications, although papers on theory are also welcome.  The
workshop provides an opportunity for those interested in uncertainty
in AI to present their ideas and participate in the discussions.  Also
panel discussions will provide a lively cross-section of views.

Papers are invited on the following topics:

  *Applications--Descriptions of novel approaches; interesting results;
   important implementation difficulties; experimental comparison of
   alternatives etc.

  *Comparison and Evaluation of different uncertainty formalisms.

  *Induction (Theory discovery) under uncertainty.

  *Alternative uncertainty approaches.

  *Relationship between uncertainty and logic.

  *Uncertainty about uncertainty (Higher order approaches).

  *Other uncertainty in AI issues.

  Preference will be given to papers that have demonstrated their approach
in real applications.  Some papers may be accepted for publication but not
presentation (except at a poster session).

   Four copies of the paper (or an extended abstract) should be sent to the
arrangements chairman before 23rd. May 1986.  Acceptances will be sent by the
20th. June and final (camera ready) papers must be received by 11th. July.
Proceedings will be available at the workshop.


General Chair:            Program Chair:              Arrangements Chair:

John Lemmer               Peter Cheeseman             Lawrence Carnuccio
KSC Inc.                  NASA-Ames Research Center   RCA-Adv. Tech. Labs.
255 N. Washington St.     Mail Stop 244-7             Mooretown Corp. Cntr.
Rome, NY 13440            Moffett Field, CA 94035     Route 38, Mooretown,
(315)336-0500             (415)694-6526               NJ 08057
                                                      (609)866-6428
Program Committee:
P. Cheeseman, J. Lemmer, T. Levitt, J. Pearl, M. Yousry, L. Zadeh.

------------------------------

Date: Thu 9 Jan 86 15:12:41-CST
From: CMP.LADAI@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
Subject: Conference - User-System Interfaces Workshop


                        USER-SYSTEM INTERFACES WORKSHOP


When:   January 31 - Febuary 1, 1986

Where:  Austin South Plaza Hotel, Austin, Texas
        I-35 and Woodward

What:   A multidisciplinary conference addressing the problem of implementing
        effective communication between human and machine.  The contributions
        of various fields such as Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive
        Psychology are considered.

Participants:
  Brooks AFB SAM
  Burroughs
  IBM
  Lockheed
  MCC
  Rice University
  Southwest Research Institute
  Texas A&M University
  Texas Instruments
  University of Texas

Registration:                           Mail to:
  Before Jan. 24 - $30.00                 M. Sury
        Students - $15.00                 Dept. T2-32, Bldg. 30E
  After Jan. 24  - $40.00                 Lockheed Austin Division
        Students - $20.00                 P.O. Box 17100
  Includes lunch on Jan. 31.              Austin, TX 78760

For additional info:
  Ron Grissell  -  [512]448-5154
  Manda Sury    -  [512]448-5314
  Diana Webster -  [512]448-9186

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Dec 85 23:12:53 EST
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa.yktvmv%ibm-sj.csnet@CSNET-SH.ARPA>
Subject: Conference - IFIP Conference on Knowledge and Data

                                  IFIP

          INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION FOR INFORMATION PROCESSING

                              ANNOUNCEMENT

         TC2 WORKING CONFERENCE organized by Working Group 2.6

                       Knowledge and Data (DS-2)

          November 3-7, 1986 in Albufeira (Algarve), Portugal

Scope:  Questions of meaning are more important for the design
of a knowledge base than methods of encoding data in bits and bytes.
As database designers add more semantic information to their systems,
their conceptual schemata begin to look like AI systems of
knowledge representation.  In recognizing this convergence on issues of
semantics, IFIP Working Group 2.6 is organizing a working conference
on Knowledge and Data.  It will address the issues and problems
of knowledge representation from an interdisciplinary point of view.

Topics:

   Design of a conceptual schema
   Knowledge and data modeling
   Database semantics
   Natural language semantics
   Expert database systems
   Logic, databases, and AI
   Methods of knowledge engineering
   Tools and aids for knowledge acquisition

Invited speakers:

   Herve Gallaire, Germany
   Robert Meersman, Belgium
   J. Alan Robinson, USA
   Roger Schank, USA
   Dana Scott, USA


An IFIP working conference is oriented towards detailed discussion of
the topics presented.  Participation is by invitation, with optional
contribution of a paper that is refereed by the program committee.
Anyone who is interested in participating should send an abstract
of current research or a prospective paper to either of the
program cochairmen.  Abstracts are due March 14, 1986.  Complete
papers are due May 16, 1986.


General Chairman:  Amilcar Sernadas, Portugal

Program cochairmen:

   John F. Sowa                         Robert Meersman
   IBM Systems Research Institute       L.U.C. -- Dept. WNIF
   500 Columbus Avenue                  Universitaire Campus
   Thornwood, NY  10594                 B-3610 Diepenbeek
   U.S.A.                               Belgium

   CSNET:  sowa.yktvmt@ibm

------------------------------

Date: 30 Dec 85 16:17:11 EST (Mon)
From: Duke Briscoe <duke@mitre.ARPA>
Subject: Conference - 2nd Expert Systems in Government, Re-Revised Version


This is yet another revision of the notice sent out several weeks ago,
and is a revision of the revision sent out earlier today.  I am sorry
for the repetition, but there have been several foul-ups in the
information being fed to me for the production of this announcement.

                         CALL FOR PAPERS



                  THE SECOND ANNUAL CONFERENCE

                               ON

                  EXPERT SYSTEMS IN GOVERNMENT

 Tyson's Westpark Hotel, McLean, VA in suburban Washington, D.C.
                      October 20 - 24, 1986

  The conference is sponsored by the IEEE Computer Society and
       the Mitre Corporation in cooperation with AIAA/NCS.

The objective of the conference is to explore the following:
        - knowledge based applications and supporting technologies
        - implementation and impact of emerging application areas
        - future trends in available systems and required research

Classified and unclassified papers which relate  to  the  use  of
knowledge  based  systems  are solicited.  The topics of interest
include, but are not limited to, the following applications:

Professional: engineering, finance, law, management, medicine
Office Automation: text understanding, intelligent DBMS, intelli-
gent systems
Command & Control: intelligence  analysis,  planning,  targeting,
communications, air traffic control, battle management
Exploration: outer space, prospecting, archaeology
Weapon Systems: adaptive control, electronic warfare, Star  Wars,
target identification
Equipment: CAD/CAM, design monitoring, maintenance, repair
Software: automatic programming,  maintenance,  verification  and
validation
Architecture: distributed knowledge based systems, parallel  com-
puting
Project Management: planning, scheduling, control
Education: concept formation, tutoring, testing, diagnosis
Imagery: photo interpretation, mapping
Systems Engineering: requirements, preliminary  design,  critical
design, testing, quality assurance
Tools and Techniques: PROLOG, knowledge acquisition and represen-
tation, uncertainty management
Plant and Factory Automation
Space Station Systems
Human-Machine Interface
Speech and Natural Language

The program will consist of submitted and invited  papers,  which
will  provide  an overview of selected areas.  Contributed papers
should be consistent with the following outline:
1. Introduction- state clearly the purpose of the work
2. Description of the actual work- must be new and significant
3. Results- discuss their significance
4. References

Completed papers are to be no longer  than  20  pages,  including
graphics.   For  classified  papers, please submit a one page un-
classified abstract.  All classified papers must be releasable at
the  Secret  level  or  below,  and  must  be pre-approved by the
author's cognizant security  release  authority.   Papers  to  be
presented  by  non-US  citizens  must  be  cleared through proper
government to government channels.  Four copies of  the  complete
paper are to be submitted to:

Dr. Kamal Karna, Conference Chairman
IEEE Computer Society
1730 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, D.C.  20036-1903

Author's Schedule:
Four copies of manuscript       May 1, 1986
Acceptance letter               June 15, 1986
Camera-ready copy               July 15, 1986

Conference Chairman:
        Dr. Kamal Karna
        Washington AI Center
        Mitre Corporation

Program Committee:
        Co-chairman: Classified
        Mr. Richard Martin
        Associate Director, Government Programs
        Software Engineering Institute
        Carnegie Mellon University

        Co-chairman: Unclassified
        Dr. Kamran Parsaye
        President
        Intelliware, Inc.

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂15-Jan-86  1300	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #6 
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Jan 86  13:00:29 PST
Date: Wed 15 Jan 1986 10:03-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #6
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Wednesday, 15 Jan 1986      Volume 4 : Issue 6

Today's Topics:
  Description - European Association for Theoretical Computer Science

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 JAN 86 10:55-N
From: ROZENBER%HLERUL5.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: Description - European Assoc. for Theoretical Computer Science

           [Forwarded from the SRI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


Dear collegue,

     I am taking advantage of this excellent communication
medium, the "Theory Net", to send you information (actually
the information leaflet) about the EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION FOR
THEORETICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE (EATCS). Although our associa-
tion is based in Europe, its membership is "intercontinental"
- about 40% of our members comes from outside Europe.
     In our experience the only reason that a computer
scientist who is either actively engaged or interested in
theoretical computer science is not a member of EATCS is
that she/he does not know about our organisation - just
see how much we offer for so little!!!   [...]
     If you have any questions do not hesitate to contact
either myself (electronic address: ROZENBER@HLERUL5.BITNET)
or the secretary of the association Th. Ottmann (electronic
address: OTTMANN@GERMANY.CSNET).

     I take this opportunity to wish you the very best
New Year.

                                      G. Rozenberg
                                     EATCS President

===============================================================================


       EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION FOR THEORETICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE (EATCS)



                    COUNCIL OF EATCS

                          BOARD

President:        G. Rozenberg, Leiden
Vice President:   W. Brauer, Munich
Treasurer:        J. Paredaens, Antwerp
Secretary:        Th. Ottmann, Karlsruhe
Bulletin Editor:  G. Rozenberg, Leiden
TCS Editor:       M. Nivat, Paris
Past Presidents:  M. Nivat, Paris (1972-1977)
                  M. Paterson, Warwick (1977-1979)
                  A. Salomaa, Turku (1979-1985)


                  FURTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS

G. Ausiello           Rome
J. De Bakker          Amsterdam
J. Diaz               Barcelona
F. Gecseg             Szeged
J. Gruska             Bratislava
Z. Manna              Rehovot & Stanford
H. Maurer             Graz
Ch.H. Papadimitriou   Athens & Stanford
A. Paz                Haifa
D. Perrin             Paris
E. Schmidt            Aarhus
D. Wood               Waterloo


                      EATCS

HISTORY AND ORGANISATION

   EATCS is an international organisation founded in 1972. Its aim is to
facilitate the exchange of ideas and results among theoretical computer
scientists as well as to stimulate cooperation between the theoretical
and the practical community in computer science.
   Its activities are coordinated by the Council of EATCS, out of which a
President, a Vice President, a Treasurer and a Secretary are elected.
Policy guidelines are determined by the Council and the General Assembly
of EATCS. This assembly is scheduled to take place during the annual
International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP),
the conference of EATCS.

MAJOR ACTIVITIES OF EATCS

- Organization of ICALP's
- Publication of the "Bulletin of the EATCS"
- Publication of the "EATCS Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science"
- Publication of the journal "Theoretical Computer Science"
- Other activities of EATCS include the sponsorship of various more
  specialized meetings in theoretical computer science. Among such
  meetings are: CAAP (Colloquium on Trees in Algebra and Programming),
  TAPSOFT (Conference on Theory and Practice of Software Development),
  STACS (Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science),
  Workshop on Graph Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science, European
  Workshop on Applications and Theory of Petri Nets, Workshop on Graph
  Grammars and their Applications in Computer Science.


BENEFITS

   Benefits offered by EATCS include:
- Receiving the "Bulletin of the EATCS" (about 600 pages per year)
- Reduced registration fees at various conferences
- Reciprocity agreements with other organisations
- 25% discount in purchasing ICALP proceedings
- 25% discount in purchasing books from "EATCS Monographs on Theoretical
  Computer Science"
- About 70% (equals about 1000 Dutch guilders) discount per annual
  subscription to "Theoretical Computer Science".


(1) THE ICALP CONFERENCE

   ICALP is an international conference covering all aspects of theoretical
computer science and now customarily taking place during the third week of
July.
   Typical topics discussed during recent ICALP conferences are: computability,
automata theory, formal language theory, analysis of algorithms, computa-
tional complexity, mathematical aspects of programming language definition,
logic and semantics of programming languages, foundations of logic programming,
theorem proving, software specification, computational geometry, data types and
data structures, theory of data bases and knowledge based systems, cryptography,
VLSI structures, parallel and distributed computing, models of concurrency
and robotics.

   Sites of ICALP meetings:
- Paris, France (1972)                    - Haifa, Israel (1981)
- Saarbrucken, Germany (1974)             - Aarhus, Denmark (1982)
- Edinburgh, Great Britain (1976)         - Barcelona, Spain (1983)
- Turku, Finland (1977)                   - Antwerp, Belgium (1984)
- Udine, Italy (1978)                     - Nafplion, Greece (1985)
- Graz, Austria (1979)                    - Rennes, France (1986)
- Noordwijkerhout, Holland (1980)         - Karlsruhe, Germany (1987)


(2) THE BULLETIN OF THE EATCS

   Three issues of the Bulletin are published annually appearing in
February, June and October respectively. The Bulletin is a medium for
rapid publication and wide distribution of material such as:
- EATCS matters
- Information about the current ICALP
- Technical contributions
- Surveys and tutorials
- Reports on conferences
- Calendar of events
- Reports on computer science departments and institutes
- Listings of technical reports and publications
- Book reviews
- Open problems and solutions
- Abstracts of  Ph.D. Theses
- Information on visitors at various institutions
- Entertaining contributions and pictures related to computer science.
   Contributions to any of the above areas are solicited. All written
contributions should be sent to the Bulletin Editor:

                    Prof.dr. G. Rozenberg
                    Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science
                    University of Leiden
                    P.O. Box 9512
                    2300 RA  Leiden, The Netherlands

   Deadlines for submissions to reach the Bulletin Editor are: January 15,
May 15 and September 15 for the February, June and October issue respec-
tively.
   All pictures (preferably black and white) including text of what they
are showing should be sent to the Picture Editor:

                    Dr. P. van Emde-Boas
                    University of Amsterdam
                    Roeterstraat 15
                    1018 WB  Amsterdam, The Netherlands

   Deadlines are 2 weeks before those for written contributions, indicated
above.


(3) EATCS MONOGRAPHS ON THEORETICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE

   This is a series of monographs published by Springer-Verlag and launched
during ICALP 1984; within the first year six volumes appeared. The series
includes monographs as well as innovative textbooks in all areas of theo-
retical computer science, such as the areas listed above in connection
with the ICALP conference. The volumes are hard-cover and ordinarily
produced by type-setting. To ensure attractive prices other  production
methods are possible.
   The editors of the series are W. Brauer (Munich), G. Rozenberg (Leiden),
and A. Salomaa (Turku). Potential authors should contact one of the editors.
The advisory board consists of G. Ausiello (Rome), S. Even (Haifa), M. Nivat
(Paris), C. Papadimitriou (Athens & Stanford), A. Rosenberg (Durham), and
D. Scott (Pittsburgh).
   Updated information about the series can be obtained from the publisher,
Springer-Verlag.


(4) THEORETICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE

   The aim of the "Theoretical Computer Science" journal is to publish
papers in the fast envolving field of theoretical computer science.
   The volume of research on theoretical aspects of computer science
has increased enormously in the past. The classical theories of
automata and formal languages still offer problems and results,
while considerable attention is now being given to newer areas, such
as the formal semantics of programming languages and the study of algorithms
and their complexity. Behind all this lie the major problems of under-
standing the nature of computation and its relation to computing
methodology. While "Theoretical Computer Science" remains mathematical
and abstract in spirit, it derives its motivation from the problems of
practical computation. The editors intend that the domain covered
by "Theoretical Computer Science" will increase and evolve with the
growth of the science itself. The editor-in-chief of "Theoretical
Computer Science" is:

                    Prof. M. Nivat
                    162, Boulevard Malesherbes
                    75017 Paris, France.


ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

   Please contact the Secretary of EATCS:

                    Prof.dr. Th. Ottmann
                    Institut fur Angewandte Informatik und Formale
                                            Beschreibungsverfahren
                    Universitat Karlsruhe
                    Postfach 6380
                    D-7500 Karlsruhe 1
                    West Germany


DUES

   The dues are US $ 10.- for a period of one year. If the initial
membership payment is received in the period December 21 - April 20,
April 21 - August 20, August 21 - December 20, then the first
membership year will start on June 1, October 1, February 1,
respectively. Every continuation payment continues the membership
for the same time period.
   An additional fee is required for ensuring the air mail delivery
of the EATCS Bulletin outside Europe. The amounts are $ 7.- for USA,
Canada, Israel, $ 10.- for Japan and $ 12.- for Australia per year.
For information additonal fees for other destinations contact either
the Secretary or the Treasurer.


HOW TO JOIN EATCS

   To join send the annual dues, or a multiple thereof (to cover a
number of years), to the Treasurer of EATCS:

                    Prof.dr. J. Paredaens
                    University of Antwerp, U.I.A.
                    Department of Mathematics
                    Universiteitsplein 1
                    B-2610 Wilrijk, Belgium

   The dues can be paid (in order of preference) by US $ bank cheques,
other currency bank cheques, US $ cash, other currency cash. It cannot
be paid by International Post Money Order. When submitting payment,
please make sure to indicate complete name and address. For this purpose
you may want to use the form below. You may also pay the membership fee
via the following account:

                    General Bank Antwerp
                    Antwerp, Belgium
                    Account number: 220-0596350-30

   If a transfer is in US $ then the annual membership payment equals
US $ 10.-. If a transfer (covering the membership for any number of years
and/or addtitional air mail delivery for any number of years) is in a
currency other than US $, then additional US $ 2.- for the transfer must
be paid (the difference is used to cover the bank charges). Please remember
to indicate your address clearly (since the Bulletin is send to the address
you give).

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂15-Jan-86  1525	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #7 
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Jan 86  15:25:04 PST
Date: Wed 15 Jan 1986 10:06-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #7
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Wednesday, 15 Jan 1986      Volume 4 : Issue 7

Today's Topics:
  Seminars - Reasoning About Hard Objects (BBN) &
    LOGIN: A Logic Programming Language with Inheritance (MIT) &
    Temporal Reasoning and Default Logics (SU) &
    LISP/Prolog Memory Performance (Ames)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Dec 1985 12:10-EST
From: Brad Goodman <BGOODMAN at BBNG>
Subject: Seminar - Reasoning About Hard Objects (BBN)

           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


                        BBN Laboratories
                    Science Development Program
                           AI Seminars


Speaker:  Ernest Davis
          NYU

Title:  Issues in Reasoning about Hard Objects

Date:  Monday, December 16th, 10:30a.m.

Place:  BBN Labs, 10 Moulton Street, 3rd floor large conference room

                              Abstract

The physics of rigid solid objects raises two serious problems which have not
been addressed in previous spatial and physical reasoning programs.  Firstly,
the physical properties of solid objects are sensitive to very slight
variations in shapes.  Therefore, when an ideal shape is used to
approximate a real shape, the accuracy of the approximation must be
tightly bounded.  Secondly,  the method of reasoning used by both Forbus
and DeKleer of going from one critical point to the next is not, in
general, appropriate.  Frequently, as in reasoning about a ball going
down a funnel, one is interested only in the final outcome (the ball
goes out the funnel) and not in any of the intermediate critical points
(collisions between the ball and the funnel).  However, it is difficult
to state axioms that assert global relationships of this sort in a way
that allows them to be used in cases where additional objects enter the
picture.

------------------------------

Date: Thu 9 Jan 86 13:37:32-EST
From: Susan Hardy <SH@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Seminar - LOGIN: A Logic Programming Language with Inheritance (MIT)

       [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.]


                      DATE:  Thursday, January 16, 1986

                      TIME:  3:00 p.m. - Refreshments
                             3:15 p.m. - Lecture

                     PLACE:  NE43-512A

                                        LOGIN:
                             A LOGIC PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE
                              WITH BUILT-IN INHERITANCE

                                   Hassan Ait-Kaci

                                     A.I. Program
                                  MCC, Austin, Texas


        Since the early days of  research in Automated Deduction,  inheritance
        has been proposed as a means to capture a special kind of information;
        viz., taxonomic information.   For example, when  it is asserted  that
        "whales are mammals", we  understand that whatever properties  mammals
        possess should  also  hold for  whales.   Naturally, this  meaning  of
        inheritance can be well captured in logic by the semantics of  logical
        implication.   However,  this   is  not  operationally   satisfactory.
        Indeed, in a first-order logic deduction system realizing  inheritance
        as implication, inheritance from "mammal" to "whale" is achieved by an
        inference step.  But this special kind of information somehow does not
        seem to  be  meant  as a  deduction  step---thus  lengthening  proofs.
        Rather, its purpose seems to be  to accelerate, or focus, a  deduction
        process---thus shortening proofs.

        In  this  talk,  I  shall  argue  that  the  syntax  and   operational
        interpretation of first-order terms can be extended to accommodate for
        taxonomic  ordering  relations  between  constructor  symbols.   As  a
        result, I shall propose a simple and efficient paradigm of unification
        which allows the separation of (multiple) inheritance from the logical
        inference  machinery   of   Prolog.   This   yields   more   efficient
        computations and enhanced language expressiveness.  The language  thus
        obtained,  called   LOGIN,  subsumes   Prolog,  in   the  sense   that
        conventional Prolog programs are equally well executed by LOGIN.

        I shall start  with motivational examples,  introducing the flavor  of
        what I believe  to be  a more expressive  and efficient  way of  using
        taxonomic information, as opposed to  straight Prolog.  Then, I  shall
        give a quick formal summary of  how first-order terms may be  extended
        to  embody  taxonomic  information  as  record-like  type  structures,
        together with an efficient type unification algorithm.  This will lead
        to a technical proposal for integrating this notion of terms into  the
        SLD-resolution mechanism of Prolog. With examples, I shall  illustrate
        a LOGIN interpreter.

        Host: Rishiyur Nikhil
              (617)253-0237
              Nikhil@mit-xx.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jan 86  1659 PST
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - Temporal Reasoning and Default Logics (SU)


Next nonmotonic reasoning meeting:


                A Review and Critique of:
                        "Temporal Reasoning and Default Logics"
                          by Steve Hanks and Drew McDermott
                                Yale/CSD/RR #430
                                  October 1985

                by Benjamin Grosof, inquisitioner

                    Thursday, January 16, 4pm

                            MJH 252

Hanks and McDermott in their recent Yale Tech Report pose an example
problem in temporal reasoning and claim that none of the leading
formalisms for default reasoning (namely Reiter's Default Logic,
McDermott and Doyle's modal Non-Monotonic Logic, and Circumscription)
adequately capture the type of non-monotonic reasoning that is (what
they claim is) desirable in the example.  They give an algorithm which
does.  They go on to conclude rather pessimistically that there seems
to be some inherent problem in the semantics of all three default
formalisms.

In this talk, I review their paper, including their temporal logic.  I
argue that their example in particular is interesting and suggestive,
but that the semantical difficulty that they emphasize arises from an
underspecification of the problem.  I will go on to suggest how indeed
to represent the additional CRITERION satisfied by their algorithm
(but not by their formulations in default formalisms).  I show how
Vladimir's new circumscription presented in our fall sessions of the
non-monotonic reasoning seminar can solve the representational problem
they pose.  I argue that circumscription, because it can incorporate
certain kinds of preferences among competing extensions via
prioritization, has an advantage over the other two default
formalisms, and promises to be able to represent the CRITERION more
generally than their algorithm does.  I also discuss how their
temporal formalism occupies an intermediate place between STRIPS and
situation calculus.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Jan 86 21:47:09 pst
From: eugene@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Seminar - LISP/Prolog Memory Performance (Ames)


National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Ames Research Center
SEMINAR ANNOUNCEMENT


             Joint Ames AI Forum/RCR Branch

SPEAKER: Evan Tick
         Computer Systems Laboratory
         Stanford University

TOPIC: Memory Performance of Lisp and Prolog Programs

ABSTRACT: This talk presents a comparison between Lisp and Prolog
architectures based on memory performance.  A subset of the Gabriel
benchmarks was translated into Prolog, compiled into the Warren Abstract
Machine instruction set and emulated.  The programs were also measured with
an instrumented Common Lisp targeted to a Series 9000/HP237.  Memory usage
statistics indicate how the two langauges do fundamental computations
different ways with varying efficiency.


DATE: 28 January 1986   TIME: 1030 AM   BLDG: 172       ROOM: 233
        Tuesday

POINT OF CONTACT: E. Miya               PHONE NUMBER: (415)-694-6453
        emiya@ames-vmsb
I am current attending a conference, please send mail or contact my office
mate.

VISITORS ARE WELCOME: Register and obtain vehicle pass at Ames Visitor
Reception Building (N-253) or the Security Station near Gate 18.  See map
below.  Do not use the Navy Main Gate.

Non-citizens (except Permanent Residents) must have prior approval from the
Director's Office one week in advance.  Submit requests to the point of
contact indicated above.  Non-citizens must register at the Visitor
Reception Building.  Permanent Residents are required to show Alien
Registration Card at the time of registration.

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂15-Jan-86  1819	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #8 
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Jan 86  18:18:54 PST
Date: Wed 15 Jan 1986 10:12-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #8
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Wednesday, 15 Jan 1986      Volume 4 : Issue 8

Today's Topics:
  Queries - Macsyma & Symbolics Prolog & Speech Learning Machine,
  Definition - Paradigm,
  Intelligence - Computer IQ Tests,
  AI Tools & Applications - Expert Systems and Computer Graphics &
    Common Lisp for Xerox & Real-Time Process Control

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Jan 86 23:16 GMT
From: dkb-amos @ HAWAII-EMH.ARPA
Subject: Macsyma


I would appreciate any help that could be supplied in locating a
source for Macsyma.

I'm looking for a version that will run under Franzlisp Opus 38.91.
We do contract work for the Air Force but I have no immediate
contract application for this package, I would just like to get
familier with it and have it around for possible future applications.

Thanks.
-- Dennis Biringer

------------------------------

Date: Mon 13 Jan 86 16:07:10-PST
From: Luis Jenkins <lej@SRI-KL>
Subject: Symbolics Prolog

[Sorry if this topic has been beaten to death before many time ...]

Here at Schlumberger Palo Alto Research (SPAR) we have been working
for some time on large Prolog programs for Hardware Verification,
first in Dec-20 Prolog and then in Quintus Prolog for Suns.

Recently we have been interested in the possibility of using Symbolics
Prolog for further R&D work, as the lab has a bunch of LispMs.

Does anyone out there has first-hand (or n-hand, please specify)
experience with the Prolog that Symbolics offers. Specifically, we
want to hear praises/complaints about :-

        o DEC-10/Quintus Compatibility
        o Speed
        o Bugs
        o Extensions
        o Interface with the LispM environment
        o Mixing Prolog & Lisp code
        o Random User Comments

Thanks,

        Luis Jenkins
        Schlumberger Palo Alto Research
        lej@sri-kl
        ...decwrl!spar!lej

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jan 86 11:22:01 EST
From: kyle.wbst@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: Johns Hopkins Learning Machine

Does anyone have any more info on the following:

I caught the tail end of a news item on the NBC Today Show this morning
about someone at Johns Hopkins who has built a "Networked" computer
consisting of 300 "elements" that has a speech synthesizer attached to
it. The investigator claims that the thing learns to speak English the
same way a human baby does. They played a tape recording which
represented a condensation of several hours of "learning" by the device.
The investigator claims he does not know how the the thing works. I
didn't catch his name.

Who is this person and what is the system configuration of the machine
(which seemed to fit into one large rack of equipment).

Earle Kyle

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Jan 86 09:34:53 est
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher@MIT-HTVAX.ARPA>
Subject: Today Show Segment

A friend of mine saw the Today Show this Monday morning,
and said there was a particularly breathless segment that
left the impression that somebody has solved `the AI
problem'.  It seems to have been a rather vague story
about someone at Johns Hopkins who has built some sort of
massively parallel machine that learns language.

Sorry the details are so sketchy.  Did anybody else
see this segment or know the story behind the story?

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jan 86 22:05:47 EST
From: Mike Tanner @ Ohio State <TANNER@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Subject: Paradigm

I've seen some discussion of paradigm in recent AILists and since I
just audited a grad course in philosophy of science where we read Kuhn
I thought I'd summarize what I remember of Kuhn's notion of paradigm.
(Auditing a course certainly does not make me an expert, but it does
mean that I've read Kuhn recently and carefully.)

Several people have pointed out that the dictionary definition (e.g.,
Webster's 3rd New International) of `paradigm' is `example',
`pattern', or `model'.  But they further claim that this is not what
Kuhn meant.  However, I think that the way `paradigm' is used by Kuhn
is (most of the time) perfectly compatible with the dictionary.

In ←The←Structure←of←Scientific←Revolutions← Kuhn normally uses
`paradigm' to mean `example of theory applied' or `example of how to
do science'.  (Sometimes he uses it to mean `theory', which is
confusing and I think he later admits that it is just sloppiness on
his part.)  Ron Laymon, our prof in the philosophy of science course,
suggested that it might be best to think of paradigm as `an
uninterpreted book'.  Everybody working in some field points to a book
when asked what they do and says, "There, read that book and you'll
know."  Of course, once the book is opened there's likely to be a lot
of disagreement about what it means.

Another important characteristic of paradigms is that they suggest a
lot of further research.  If I were a cynical person I would say that
the success of a paradigm depends on people's perceptions of funding
prospects for research of the sort that it defines.

I'm not sure that AI is mature enough to rate any paradigms.  But I
think that a case could be made for some things as "mini-paradigms",
such as GPS, MYCIN, Minsky's frame paper, etc.  That is, they defined
some sub-discipline within AI where a lot of people did, and are
doing, fruitful work.  (I don't mean "mini" to be pejorative.  I just
think that a paradigm has to be a candidate for unifying research in
the field, or maybe even defining the field, and these probably don't
qualify.  But then, I might be expecting too much of paradigms.)

                                        -- mike

ARPA:  tanner@Rutgers
CSNet:  tanner@Ohio-State

Physically, I am at Ohio State but I have a virtual existence at
Rutgers and can receive mail either place.

------------------------------

Date: Wed 15 Jan 86 09:42:58-CST
From: David Throop <AI.THROOP@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: Computers & IQ Tests

There have been recent inquiries about how well computer programs can do on
IQ tests.
  An article in the journal ←Telicom← (1) mentions a computer program for
taking IQ tests.  It seems to be aimed entirely at the kinds of math
puzzles that fill in missing numbers in series.
  "The program (is) called HIQ-SOLVER 160 ... BASIC, less than 10 Kbytes...
in July/August Dutch computer magazine ←Sinclair←Gebruiker← has the
listing... The program has been tried on the numerical test in Hans
Eysenck's ←Check←Your←Own←IQ← and it solved 36 out of 50 problems,
corresponding with an IQ of about 160 (hence its name); as some items in
the Eysenck test were of a type that had not been implemented one might
argue that the program's raw score corresponds with an even higher IQ ..."
  He goes on to give the algorithm.
  I think this example highlights an example of the difficulty of applying
human IQ tests to machines - the program scores very high on certain IQ
tests because it does a very limited kind of pattern recognition very well.
But it is completely brittle - it's helpless to recognize patterns that are
only slightly off what it expects.
  Human intelligence tests do not measure human intelligence directly.
They measure characteristics associated with intelligence.  The underlying
assumption is that this association is good enough that it will predict how
well humans will do on tasks that cannot be given as standard tests, but
evince intelligence.
  This is a dubious proposition for humans, but it breaks down completely
on machines.  Nonetheless, it shouldn't be too hard to CONS up some
programs that do terribly well on some not too terribly well designed IQ
tests.


(1)Feenstra, Marcel "Numerical IQ - Tests and Intelligence"  Telicom, Aug
85, Bx 141 San Francisco 94101

------------------------------

Date: Sun 12 Jan 86 18:05:49-PST
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Expert Systems and Computer Graphics

IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, December 1985, pp. 58-59,
has a review by Ware Myers of the 6th Eurographics conference.
The key theme was integrating expert systems and computer graphics.
Several of the papers discussed binding Prolog and the GKS
graphical kernel standard.

------------------------------

Date: Sun 12 Jan 86 17:28:34-PST
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Common Lisp for Xerox

Expert Systems, Vol. 2, No. 4, October 1985, p. 252, reports that
Xerox will be implementing Common Lisp on its Lisp workstations.
The first copies may be available in the second quarter of 1986.
Xerox will continue to support Interlisp-D, and will be adding
extensions and compatable features to both languages.  A package
for converting Interlisp-D programs to Common Lisp is being
developed.

Guy Steele said (Common Lisp, p. 3) that it is expected that user-
level packages such as InterLisp would be built on top of the Common
Lisp core.  Perhaps that is now happening.  Xerox is also offering
CommonLoops as a proposed standard for object-oriented programming.

------------------------------

Date: Sun 12 Jan 86 18:00:24-PST
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Real-Time Process Control

IEEE Spectrum, January 1986, p. 64, reports the following:

  The building of engineering expertise into single-loop controllers
  is beginning to bear fruit in the form of a self-tuning process
  controller.  The Foxboro Co. in Foxboro, Mass., included self-tuning
  features in its Model 760 single-loop controller as well as in
  three other controller-based products.  Common PID (proportional,
  integral, and derivative) controllers made by Foxboro now have a
  built-in microprocessor with some 200 production rules; the loop-tuning
  rules have evolved over the last 40 years both at Foxboro and
  elsewhere.  The Foxboro self-tuning method is a pattern recognition
  approach that allows the user to specify desirable temporal
  response to disturbances in the controlled parameter or in the
  controlled set point.  The controller then observes the actual
  shape of these disturbances and adjusts its PID values to restore
  the desirable response.

Asea also makes a self-tuning controller, Novatune, but the current
version requires substantial knowledge of stochastic control theory
to install.


Lisp Machine Inc. has now installed PICON, its expert system for
real-time process control, at about a half-dozen sites.  It has also
announced support for GM's MAP communication protocol for factory
automation.

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂20-Jan-86  1619	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #10
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Jan 86  16:18:56 PST
Date: Mon 20 Jan 1986 13:36-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #10
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Monday, 20 Jan 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 10

Today's Topics:
  Machine Learning - Connectionist Speech Machine

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 86 23:06 EST
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: nettalk


Several people inquired about the work of Terrence Sejnowski (of Johns
Hopkins) which was reported on the Today show recently.  This abstract is to
a talk given by Sejnowski here at Penn in October '85:

             NETTALK: TEACHING A MASSIVELY-PARALLEL NETWORK TO TALK

                             TERRENCE J. SEJNOWSKI
                             BIOPHYSICS DEPARTMENT
                           JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
                              BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

Text  to  speech  is a difficult problem for rule-based systems because English
pronunciation is highly context dependent and  there  are  many  exceptions  to
phonological   rules.      A   more   suitable   knowledge  representation  for
correspondences between letters and phonemes will be described in  which  rules
and  exceptions  are  treated  uniformly  and can be determined with a learning
algorithm.  The architecture is a layered network  of  several  hundred  simple
processing  units  with several thousand weights on the connections between the
units.  The training corpus is continuous informal speech transcribed from tape
recordings.   Following training on 1000 words from this corpus the network can
generalize to novel text.  Even though this network was not designed  to  mimic
human  learning,  the development of the network in some respects resembles the
early stages in human  language  acquisition.    It  is  conjectured  that  the
parallel  architecture  and  learning algorithm will also be effective on other
problems which depend on evidential reasoning from previous experience.

(No - I don't have his net address.  Tim.)

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jan 86  1225 PST
From: Richard Vistnes <RV@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: John Hopkins learning machine: info

See AIList Digest V3 #183 (10 Dec 1985) for a talk given at Stanford
a little while ago that sounds very similar.  The person is:

    Terrence J. Sejnowski
    Biophysics Department
    Johns Hopkins University
    Baltimore, MD 21218

(I didn't attend the talk).
        -Richard Vistnes

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Jan 86 0:19:10 EST
From: Terry Sejnowski <terry@hopkins-eecs-bravo.ARPA>
Subject: Reply to Inquiries

        NBC ran a short segment last Monday, January 13, on the
Today Show about my research on a connectionist model of text-to-speech.
The segment was meant for a general audience (waking up)
and all the details were left out, so here is an abstract for
those who have asked for more information.  A technical report is
available (Johns Hopkins Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Technical Report EECS-8601) upon request.

        NETtalk: A Parallel Network that Learns to Read Aloud

                Terrence Sejnowski
                Department of Biophysics
                Johns Hopkins University
                Baltimore, MD 21218

                Charles R. Rosenberg
                Department of Psychology
                Princeton Unviversity
                Princeton, NJ 08540

Unrestricted English text can be converted to speech by applying
phonological rules and handling exceptions with a look-up table.
However, this approach is highly labor intensive since each entry
and rule must be hand-crafted.  NETtalk is an alternative approach
that is based on an automated learning procedure for a parallel
network of deterministic processing units.  After training on a
corpus of informal continuous speech, it achieves good performance
and generalizes to novel words.  The distributed representations
discovered by the network are damage resistant and recovery from
damage is about ten times faster than the original learning
starting from the same level of performance.


Terry Sejnowski

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 86 12:53 EST
From: Mark Beutnagel <Beutnagel%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: speech learning machine

The speech learning machine referred to in a recent AIList is almost
certainly a connection machine built by Terry Sejnowski.  The system
consists of a maybe 200 processing elements (or simulations of such)
and weighted connections between them.  Input is a small window of
text (5 letters?) and output is phonemes.  The system learns (i.e.
modifies weights) based on a comparison of the predicted phoneme with
the "correct" phoneme.  After running overnight the output was
recognizable speech--good but still slightly mechanical.  Neat stuff
but nothing mystical.

-- Mark Beutnagel  (The above is my recollection of Terry's talk here
                    at UPenn last fall so don't quote me.)

------------------------------

Date: Sun 19 Jan 86 12:31:31-PST
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Speech Learning

I'll have a try at summarizing Terry's talk at Stanford/CSLI:

The speech learning machine is a three-layer "perceptron-like"
network.  The bottom layer of 189 "processing units" simply encodes a
7-character window of input text: each character (or space) activates
one of 27 output lines and suppresses 26 other lines.

The top, or output, layer represents a "coarse coding" of the phoneme
(or silence) which should be output for the character at the center
of the 7-character window.  Each bit, or output line, of the top layer
represents some phoneme characteristic: vowel/consonant, voiced,
fricative, etc.  Each legal phoneme is thus represented by a particular
output pattern, but some output patterns might not correspond to legal
phonemes.  (I think they were mapped to silence in the recording.)
The output was used for two purposes: to compute a feedback error signal
used in training the machine, and to feed the output stage of a DecTalk
speech synthesizer so that the output could be judged subjectively.

The heart of the system is a "hidden layer" of about 200 processing
units, together with several thousand interconnections and their weights.
These connect the 189 first-level outputs to the small number of output
processing units.  It is the setting of the weight coefficients for this
network that is the central problem.

Input to the system was a page of a child's speech that had be transcribed
in phonetic notation by a professional.  Correspondence had been established
between each input letter and the corresponding phoneme (or silence), and
the coarse coding of the phonemes was known.  For any possible output of the
machine it was thus possible to determine which bits were correct and which
were incorrect.  This provided the error signal.

Unlike the Boltzmann Machine or the Hopfield networks, Sejnowski's algorithm
does not require symmetric excitory/inhibitory connections between the
processing units -- the output computation is strictly feed-forward.
Neither did this project require simulated annealing, although some form
of stochastic training or of "inverse training" on wrong inputs might be
helpful in avoiding local minima in the weight space.

What makes this algorithm work, and what makes it different from multilayer
perceptrons, is that the processing nodes do not perform a threshold
binarization.  Instead, the output of each unit is a sigmoid function of
the weighted sum of its inputs.  The sigmoid function, an inverse
exponential, is essentially the same one used in the Boltzmann Machine's
stochastic annealing; it also resembles the response curve of neurons.
Its advantage over a threshold function is that it is differentiable.
This permits the error signal to be propagated back through each
processing unit so that appropriate "blame" can be attributed to each
of the hidden units and to each of the connections feeding the hidden
units.  The back-propagated error signals are exactly the partial
derivatives needed for steepest-descent optimization of the network.

Subjective results: The output of the system for the page of text was
originally just a few random phonemes with no information content.  After
sufficient training on the correct outputs the machine learned to "babble"
with alternating vowels or vowel/consonants.  After further training it
discovered word divisions and then began to be intelligible.  It could
eventually read the page quite well, with a distinctly childish accent
but with mechanical pacing of the phonemes.  It was then presented with
a second page of text and was able to read that quite well also.

I have seen some papers by Sejnowski, Kienker, Hinton, Schumacher,
Rumelhart, and Williams exploring variations of this machine learning
architecture.  Most of the work has concerned very simple, but
difficult, problems, such as learning to compute exclusive OR or the
sum of two two-bit numbers.  More complex tasks involved detecting
symmetries in binary matrices and computing figure/ground (or
segmentation) relationships in noisy images with an associated focus
of attention.  I find the work promising and even exciting.

                                        -- Ken Laws

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂20-Jan-86  1828	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #9 
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Jan 86  18:28:33 PST
Date: Mon 20 Jan 1986 13:26-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #9
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Monday, 20 Jan 1986        Volume 4 : Issue 9

Today's Topics:
  Queries - System V Franz & OPS5 & Address for Prof. Bouille &
    Knowledge-Engineering Software & Supercomputers and AI &
    AI and Process Control & What is a Symbol?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1986 18:50 PLT
From: George Cross  <FACCROSS%WSUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
Subject: System V Franz?

Does anyone sell or distribute a version of FranzLisp that runs under
Unix System V on a VAX? or another machine?

---- George

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
George R. Cross                                cross@wsu.CSNET
Computer Science Department         cross%wsu@csnet-relay.ARPA
Washington State University             faccross@wsuvm1.BITNET
Pullman, WA 99164-1210                     (509)-335-6319/6636
Acknowledge-To: George Cross <FACCROSS@WSUVM1>

------------------------------

Date: Thu 16 Jan 86 10:42:00-PST
From: Ted Markowitz <G.TJM@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: OPS5 query

I'd like to try a version of OPS5 on an IBM-PC for exploration (not
necessarily system delivery) and would like some opinions of the various
flavors I've seen advertised. A few I've noticed are TOPSI and OPS83.
Any thoughts on price, speed, portability, etc. would be welcome. I can
digest the responses and post them back to the list.

Thanx muchly.

--ted

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 86 11:06 IST
From: Amir Toister  <J65%TAUNIVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
Subject: help


CAN ANYONE HELP ME LOCATE:
             PROF. F. BOUILLE
             LABORATOIRE D'INFORMATIQUE
             DES SCIENCE DE LA TERRE,
             UNIV. PIERRE ET MARIE CURIE.
             PARIS

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 86 15:04:24 est
From: Tom Scott <scott%bgsu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Two questions on knowledge-engineering software

1.   Rick Dukes from  Symbolics recently gave  an interesting  talk on
AI/KE to  the  Northwest Ohio chapter  of   the ACM.   He mentioned an
expert-system-building tool, MRS, from Stanford.  I ran across another
reference to MRS in the  Winter 1986 issue of "AI  Magazine" (p. 107).
Can anyone tell   me about  the   system?  What   does  it do?    What
representation and search techniques are available through it?  Can it
handle frames?  Semantic networks?   Certainty factors?   How does  it
work as an expert-system development environment?

        Most importantly, how does a  university acquire MRS?  I think
Rick told  us  that it  was available to universities  essentially for
free.  If that is true, then where can we send a tape?

2.  Several good works have been published on Prolog, e.g., Clocksin &
Mellish's "Programming  in Prolog" and Lloyd's  "Foundations  of Logic
Programming".  It appears,  however, that  there  is no  book  yet  on
"advanced"  AI/KE programming techniques in   Prolog.  The Clocksin  &
Mellish text  is    good as an introduction,  the    Lloyd book as   a
theoretical  discussion of logical foundations.   A number of us would
like to see a Prolog book that covers topics similar in scope to  part
II  of Charniak,  Riesbeck, and   McDermott's "Artificial Intelligence
Programming".   Charniak  et al.   use Lisp;   who  does the same with
Prolog?

        One hope along these lines is an  MIT Press  book, "The Art of
Prolog" by Sterling and Shapiro.  I first saw a reference to  it in an
advertisement on p.  A-22  of "Communications of  the  ACM"   (January
1986).  Has the book been published yet or is it not supposed  to come
out until May?  Does anyone know about it?  What does it cover?

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 86 09:47:20 cet
From: JOHND%IDUI1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: Supercomputers and AI

I would like to know if anyone has any references to AI projects
being done on supercomputers.  We have a class here on
supercomputers that will be using a Cray XMP/24, an Intel
Hypercube, and perhaps an MPP.  I am interested in having a
student do an AI related project, and I'd like it to relate to
some current work.  I am also interested in how much AI
software (languages and systems) has been transported to
these supercomputer.  All references will be most appreciated.

John Dickinson
Univ. of Idaho
JOHND%IDUI1 (on BITNET)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 86 9:21:58 MET
From: mcvax!delphi.UUCP!mdc@seismo.CSS.GOV
Subject: AI and process control

I am involved in a AI factory automation project.
Can you give me any reference or material on this subject?

Thanks

Maurizio De Cecco
DELPHI S.p.A.
Via Della Vetraia, 11
55049 Viareggio
Italy

  [Two magazine articles are Expert Systems, Vol. 1, No. 1, July 1984, and
  High Technology, May 1985.  The first is a description of the CMU ISIS
  scheduling system, the latter a report on factory automation.  -- KIL]

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jan 86 17:12:15 EST
From: David.Plaut@K.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: What is a symbol?

This is a request for help....

The idea of a symbol is found throughout AI and Cognitive Science, and seems
to bear considerable theoretical weight.  Newell and Simon's Physical Symbol
System Hypothesis, that a machine that carries out processes operating on
symbol structures has the necessary and sufficient means for general
intelligent action, seems to be an expression of the underlying assumptions
of the majority of work in AI.

Yet it seems that no satisfactory definition/description (necessary and
sufficient characteristics) of what is meant by a symbol (sorry about the
pun) has ever been presented.  The following rough description seems to be a
standard attempt:

        A symbol is a formal entity whose internal structure
        places no restrictions on what it may represent in the
        domain of interest.

Unfortunately, when combined with the Physical Symbol System Hypothesis,
this notion of symbol creates a problem with regard to so-called
"connectionist" systems.

It is possible to design a connectionist system that exhibits, if not
"general intelligent action", certainly "knowledge-level" behavior, without
any processes operating on symbol structures.  The formal, computational
processes of the system are operating below the symbol level, in terms of
the interaction of units representing non-symbolic "micro-features".  A
symbol level description of the system only applies to emergent patterns of
micro-features.  Unfortunately these patterns fail to qualify as symbols by
the above account due to the fact that it is precisely their internal
structure which determines what they represent.  Thus we are left with a
system capable of knowledge-level behavior apparently without symbols.

It seems there are three ways out of this dilemma:

        (1) deny that connectionist systems are capable, in
            principle, of "true" general intelligent action;

        (2) reject the Physical Symbol System Hypothesis; or

        (3) refine our notion of a symbol to encompass the operation
            and behavior of connectionist systems.

(1) seems difficult (but I suppose not impossible) to argue for, and since I
don't think AI is quite ready to agree to (2), I'm hoping for help with (3)
- Any suggestions?

David Plaut
(dcp@k.cs.cmu.edu)

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂22-Jan-86  1323	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #11
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Jan 86  13:23:38 PST
Date: Wed 22 Jan 1986 10:07-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #11
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Wednesday, 22 Jan 1986     Volume 4 : Issue 11

Today's Topics:
  Query - LISP Language Standard,
  Correction - Spang Robinson Report on Reasoning Systems,
  AI Tools - AI and Supercomputers & MRS,
  Definitions - Paradigm & Symbol,
  Expert Systems & AI in the Media - Connectionist Speech Learning &
    Arthur Young's System for Financial Auditing

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Jan 86 01:18:00 PST
From: sea.wolfgang@ames-vmsb.ARPA
Reply-to: sea.wolfgang@ames-vmsb.ARPA
Subject: LISP Language Standard


 I am currently involved in the definition of some loose LISP
programming standards [loose LISP sink ships], has anyone given any
thought to this, particularly as it applies to LISP environments,
or does anyone know of any articles on the topic?.
 I will be happy to collect responses and send them back out on the
List.
 Thank you,

S. Engle, Informatics General Co.
NASA/Ames Research Center MS 242-4
Moffet Field, CA 95035

SEA.WOLFGANG@AMES-VMSB.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 86 04:18:25 cst
From: Laurence Leff <leff%smu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Correction

[Joseph Rockmore, vice president of Reasoning Systems, says that the
Spang Robinson report on his company's agreement with Lockheed was
correct, but that the summary in AIList incorrectly identified his
company's work with "USC Kestrel Institute".  He points out that
Reasoning Systems is associated with Kestrel, but that neither is
associated with USC-ISI.  Laurence Leff has provided the following
additional summary in the course of resolving this matter.  Contact
rockmore@kestrel.ARPA for further information.  -- KIL]


In my abstracts of Spang Robinson Report, I reported parenthetically
that Reasoning Systems is commercializing the work of [...] Kestrel Institute.
That parenthetical statement was based on my own analysis of the
situation and was not included in the Spang Robinson report.  My apologies
for any confusion created.

Its was based on what I perceived to be a similarity between the work
and the fact that one person has moved from that organization over to
Reasoning Systems (as indicated in the address of authors section of
IEEE Transactions on software Engineering).  Also, quoting from
"Software Environments at Kestrel Institute" in the November 1985
Volume Se-11 No 11, "One of the authors (G. B. Kotik) is currently with
Reasoning Systems, a company founded in 1984 in order to apply the body
of basic research in knowledge-based programing to commercial problems.
Reasoning Systems develops special-purpose knowledge-based program
generators and programming environments for various domains."  and
later in the same article "Toward these ends, Reasoning Systems has
developed a system called REFINE,"  "Although REFINE derives its
inspiration from many sources, it utilizes the principles and system
structure laid out in the CHI project."

------------------------------

Date: Tue 21 Jan 86 13:52:27-CST
From: CMP.BARC@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
Subject: AI and Supercomputers

On January 17, UCSD offered a one-day program, called "Capabilities and
Applications of the San Diego Supercomputer Center", in conjunction with
the opening of their new center.  One of the talks was "AI and Expert Systems
on Supercomputers" by Dr. Robert Leary, a Senior Staff Scientist at the
San Diego Supercomputer Center.  I didn't attend the course but heard that
Leary's talk was preliminary and did not present any significant applica-
tions.  Further information can probably be obtained from SDSC on the UCSD
campus or from UCSD Extension.  The address of UCSD is La Jolla, CA 92903.

Dallas Webster
CMP.BARC@R20.UTexas.Edu

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 86 09:52:16 est
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher@MIT-HTVAX.ARPA>
Subject: MRS

   Date: Fri, 17 Jan 86 15:04:24 est
   From: Tom Scott <scott%bgsu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
   Subject: Two questions on knowledge-engineering software

   1.   Rick Dukes from  Symbolics recently gave  an interesting  talk on
   AI/KE to  the  Northwest Ohio chapter  of   the ACM.   He mentioned an
   expert-system-building tool, MRS, from Stanford.
   * * *
   Can anyone tell   me about  the   system?  What   does  it do?
   What representation and search techniques are available through it?

It's a logic programming system written in Lisp.  The principal
underlying inference engine is resolution, you can also do forward &
backward chaining.  The name means `Metalevel Reasoning System'
because you can write meta-level axioms, axioms about the base level
knowledge -- usually these meta axioms are used to guide the
search-based inference procedures.  I hear the latest version lets one
write meta-meta-axioms, meta-meta-meta-axioms, etc ("Anything you can
do, I can do Meta," as Brachman says).

For background see "An Overview of Meta-Level Architecture" Genesereth
AAAI-83.  Stanford Heuristic Programming Project probably has some
kind of MRS manual; there's also an `MRS Dictionary' but that's really
more of a reference tool.

   Can it handle frames?  Semantic networks?   Certainty factors?

It can `handle' anything you can write in lisp... does it provide
any of these facilities, No, I don't think so.

   How does it work as an expert-system development environment?

Good question.  How does Lisp work as an expert-system environment?

For applications to troubleshooting & test generation see Genesereth,
AAAI-82; Yamada, IJCAI-83; Singh's PhD thesis from Stanford (1985);
Genesereth in AI Journal V 24 #1-3 or `Qualitative Reasoning about
Physical Systems', ed. Bobrow.  It's NOT a traditional expert-system
envirionment ala KEE, ART, S1, DUCK, etc.

           Most importantly, how does a  university acquire MRS?

Jane Hsu (HSU@SCORE) should be able to tell you all about this.  I
believe she's charge of maintenance & distribution.  She may refer you
on to Arthur Whitney, but try Jane first.

   I think
   Rick told  us  that it  was available to universities  essentially for
   free.  If that is true, then where can we send a tape?

For some reason the figure $500 sounds right, but don't quote me.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 86 10:43:33 PST
From: kube%cogsci@BERKELEY.EDU (Paul Kube)
Subject: What's a paradigm?

A classic attempt to figure out just what the devil Kuhn means by
`paradigm' is Margaret Masterman's `The nature of a paradigm' (in
←Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge←, I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave,
eds.).  She finds 21 ("possibly more, not less") senses of the term
in the first edition of ←The Structure of Scientific Revolutions←;
take your pick.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 86 02:16:17 PST
From: kube%cogsci@BERKELEY.EDU (Paul Kube)
Subject: Re: What is a symbol?

>....  Newell and Simon's Physical Symbol
>System Hypothesis, that a machine that carries out processes operating on
>symbol structures has the necessary and sufficient means for general
>intelligent action, seems to be an expression of the underlying assumptions
>of the majority of work in AI.
...
>        A symbol is a formal entity whose internal structure
>        places no restrictions on what it may represent in the
>        domain of interest.
>
>Unfortunately, when combined with the Physical Symbol System Hypothesis,
>this notion of symbol creates a problem with regard to so-called
>"connectionist" systems.

I think at least two concepts, not just one, need some work here: it
would help to have a better idea not only of what symbols are, but
also of what operating on a symbol is.

Under what one might call the Turing conception of `operating on a
symbol'-- a strong, agentive interpretation: symbols are objects that
get manipulated by a processor, e.g. written on and erased from a
tape, or shuffled from location to location--I think that it's
probably true that connectionist systems do not `operate' on symbols
that have interesting external referents.  But I doubt that the
majority of workers in AI believe that in this sense `operating on
symbols' is necessary for the production of intelligent action, and so
there is no conflict with connectionism; that construal of the PSSH is
easy enough to give up.  (That `operating on symbols' in the Turing
sense be sufficient for the production of intelligent action is,
however, pretty clearly an underlying assumption of work in the field;
but of course this doesn't conflict with connectionism either.)

On the other hand, a weaker interpretation of what operating on
symbols amounts to gives a PSSH that is compatible with connectionism,
not to mention being more likely to be true.  Certainly what's
important about symbols for theory construction in AI is that they
have formal properties which determine their interactions with other
symbols without regard to any semantic properties they might have,
while being susceptible of being assigned semantic properties in a way
that is dependent on these interactions.  (Anyway I don't think it's
helpful to require of a symbol that its `internal structure places no
restrictions on what it may represent', at least without further
specification of what counts as internal structure.  Take an English
word: `symbol', say.  What's between the quotes is a symbol, I'd
think, but intuitively its internal structure places pretty strong
restrictions on what it represents: try composing it of six different
letters, for example.)  But then they don't need to be objects;
symbols can be states, and the formal properties which determine their
interaction (`operations' on them) can be identified with certain of
their causal properties.  Now, one way a system can be in symbolic
states is to operate on symbols in the strong, Turing sense; but this
is only one way.  Symbolic states can also be emergent states of a
connectionist system.


Paul Kube
Computer Science Division
U.C. Berkeley
Berkeley, CA  94720

kube@cogsci.berkeley.edu
ucbvax!kube

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 86 16:57:43 mst
From: ted%nmsu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
Subject: today show segment

I think that the work that was mentioned recently in the digest
from the today show (which I didn't see) was the speech synthesis
work which was described earlier on the aidigest (sketchily). I
don't remember the contact (sejnowski??), but the machine was a
neural analog network that modified it's own weights when given a
training corpus of textual english with correct voice synthesizer
outputs. Then, when given more english (it wasn't clear that this
new text had not appeared in the original training corpus) the
machine produced coherent control inputs for the voice
synthesizer.

Claims that ``it learns to speak the way that human babies do''
and so on are obviously bunk since people don't learn initially
to read text and because people also have to derive the
correlation between their motor stimulation (essentially the
voice synthesizer control level), the sound thereby produced and
the percepts that are returned via their ears.  A measure of the
comparative difficulty is that programs which do text to speech
conversion extremely well have been existence for several years
(DECtalk is the current avatar), but no program can yet even
reproduce an infant's use of auditory language.  Certainly, no-one
can be claiming that a program that can learn to do the former
must be able to consequently be able to learn to do the latter,
much less that the acquisition method that would be used is the
one used by human children.

The most interesting thing is that my original contact with the
author of the project in question (I think), is that he never
mentioned this sort of comparison.

sigh....the original work was interesting, possibly even
progressive.  But then here comes the today show interviewers
looking for a BREAKTHROUGH.  So they find (make) one and we hear
about another case of ai-hype.  Everybody get ready for another
wave of flames.

------------------------------

Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: News Flash

Source: January 16 Wall Street Journal  FIRST Page

"CPA firm Arthur Young unveils a computer system today that uses expert
systems to help the auditor focus on areas where risk of error is greatest.
The system could mean average savings of 10% in time and money, says
Arthur Young's Robert Temkin"

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂22-Jan-86  1604	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #12
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Jan 86  16:04:41 PST
Date: Wed 22 Jan 1986 13:10-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #12
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Thursday, 23 Jan 1986      Volume 4 : Issue 12

Today's Topics:
  Natural Language - Modulated Kitchens and Superior Borders,
  Humor - Pseudoscience Jargon,
  Logic & Humor - Proof that P = NP,
  Games - Othello Tournament Information
  Literature - New Text on Natural Language Processing

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Dec 1985 1822-PST (Sunday)
From: Steven Tepper <greep@camelot>
Subject: modulated kitchens and superior borders

From a recent issue of the Chronicle:

        "When you mount the cooker hood on a modulated kitchen,
        please care that the superior border of the caliber is
        on the inferior border of the incorporated board.  When
        you fix the cooker hood to the incorporated board, please
        set this border on the wall up on the bottom of the
        incorporated board and use the unhooped holes."

   Instructions for fitting a stove hood made in Italy by the Zanussi
   company.  The Plain English Campaign in London has awarded the
   directions its annual prize for the worst example of bureaucratic
   language, citing an "incompetent and baffling translation from an
   unknown language into sub-English."


   [This should give the machine translation people something to
   shoot for.  -- KIL]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 86 09:59 EST
From: Sonny Crockett <weltyc%rpicie.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: A good one on HAL

        I just got the videotape of 2010, and figured out what Dr. Chandra
said about the reason HAL screwed up in the first mission.  The major
problem most SF authors have is trying to come up with ways to express
advanced scientific things in a way that sounds very scientific...this
is a great one:

        (Dr. Chandra has just finished explaining that HAL was given
         conflicting orders, and was only trying to interpret them
         the best he could)
        "...HAL was trapped, more precisely he got caught in an H. Mobius
         Loop, which is possible in autonomous call-seeking computers."

I thought it was funny, anyway...

                                -Chris

PS  If anyone (like me) enjoys laughing at these kind of "pseudo-science"
    phrases, I recommend watching Dr. Who (most famous for "Multi-dimensional
    Time/Space Vortex"), and Star Trek ("Hodgkins Theory for Parallel Planet
    Development," is one of my favorites).  I'm sure there are many others
    as well.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Dec 85 16:11:46 pst
From: Alain Fournier <fournier@su-navajo.ARPA>
Reply-to: fournier@Navajo.UUCP (Alain Fournier)
Subject: Logic & Humor - Proof that P = NP

         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


> From: Len <Lattanzi@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
>
> $15 to anyone who can prove P = NP.
>
> #8↑)
> Len


This is an old one, but what the hell, it's $15.00:


       -----------------------------------
       |   Exactly 2 of the statements   |
       |   in these 3 boxes are false    |
       |                                 |
       -----------------------------------


       -----------------------------------
       |                                 |
       |            P != NP              |
       |                                 |
       -----------------------------------


       -----------------------------------
       |   The statement in the first    |
       |   box is true.                  |
       |                                 |
       -----------------------------------

It is left to the reader to show that assuming statement 1 is true leads
to a contradiction, so 1 is false, therefore 3 is false, and 2 has to be false.
The same conclusion is reached if the truth value of 3 is examined.
So 2 is false, and P=NP, QED.
The $15 can be sent in my name to my favourite charity, the Douglas Hofstadter
Home for the Terminally Self-Referential. An accompanying note should specify
that I requested that my gift should have no accompanying note.

------------------------------

Date: January 17, 1986,  5:51 PM.
From: <1gtlmkf%calstate.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Othello Tournament Information

For anyone who might be interested in the upcoming Computer Othello
Tournament at CSU, Northridge on February 15-16:

Yoy may contact the tournament organizers over BITNET at the following
addresses --

     Brian Swift (AGTLBJS@CALSTATE.BITNET)
     Marc Furon  (1GTLMKF@CALSTATE.BITNET)

Any questions or requests for information about the tournament may be
sent to either of us at the addresses above.  We look forward to a
successful tournament and hope to hear from any and all interested Othello
programmers.

Thanks to Kurt Godden for sending the announcement to AILIST.

                                       Marc Furon

Yes, Othello is a trademark of CBS Toys.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Jan 86 09:52:55 EST
From: "Richard E. Cullingford" <rec%gatech.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: new AI text


This note is an announcement of a new AI book which may be of interest
to the readers of this newsgroup. The book is "Natural Language
Processing: A Knowledge Engineering Approach," and it will be
available from Rowman & Allanheld, Publishers, of Totowa, NJ,
early in the spring of 1986. The work is intended as a practical
introduction to a theory and technology for building natural
language text-processing interfaces to database management
or expert reasoning systems. The text has been in use, in manuscript, in
courses at Princeton University and Georgia Tech for the past two years,
and extensive course materials have been developed. A software system,
the NLP Toolkit, is also available, through the publisher, that runs all
of the text's examples, and is suitable for experimentation by teachers
and programmers. The Toolkit contains representation design tools, a
conceptual analyzer, a conceptual generator, a large shared dictionary,
and a knowledge-base management support package.

Questions regarding the book and the programs can be addressed to
the author, Richard E. Cullingford, at the School of Information &
Computer Science, georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 30332; at (404) 894-3227;
or gatech!rec (uucp) or rec@gatech (csnet). The book's table of contents
follows:

               Table Of Contents
Natural Language Processing: A Knowledge Engineering Approach

Preface
Notes on the Use of This Book
Acknowledgments
Table of Contents
Table of Diagrams
Table of Figures

Chapter 1: Natural Language Processing: An Overview

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Related Fields: An Overview
 1.1.1 NLP, Artificial Intelligence, and Knowledge Engineering
 1.1.2 NLP and the Sciences of Language
1.2 NLP Efforts in AI
 1.2.1 Early Efforts
 1.2.2 Second Generation Systems
 1.2.3 Third Generation Systems: A Look into the Future
1.3 Outline of the Book

Part I: A General-Purpose Language Processing Interface

Chapter 2: An Introduction to Representation Design

2.0 The Representation Problem
2.1 The Need for a Formal Representational System
2.2 Requirements on a Representational System
2.3 Introduction to ERKS
        2.3.1 The ISA-Hierarchy of the Core System
        2.3.2 Criteria for Selection of the Primitive Types
2.4 ERKS in LISP
2.5 The Maximal Inference-Free Paraphrase
2.6 Building a Model Corpus
2.7 A Simple Corpus
2.8 Primitive Actionals and Statives
2.9 Conceptual Relationships
2.10 A Representational Case Study: CADHELP
        2.10.1 The CADHELP Microworld
        2.10.2 A Typical Command
        2.10.3 Knowledge Representation Issues
2.11 Summary


Chapter 3: Software Tools for Representation Design

3.0 Introduction
3.1 Navigating in an ISA-Hierarchy
3.2 Defining ERKS Types
3.3 Access and Updating Machinery
3.4 The def-wordsense Record Macro
3.5 Summary

Chapter 4: Surface-Semantic Conceptual Analysis

4.0 Introduction: Lexicon-Driven Analysis
4.1 A Simple Model of Sentence Structure
4.2 Production Systems, Requests, and Processing Overview
4.3 Request Pool Consideration
   4.3.1 Analysis Environment
   4.3.2 Request Types
4.4 Requests in More Detail
4.5 Morphological Fragments and "to be"
4.6 A Processing Example
4.7 Summary

Chapter 5: Problems in Conceptual Analysis

5.0 Introduction
5.1 Tri-Constituent Forms and Imbedded Sentences
        5.1.1 Handling Indirect Objects
        5.1.2 Infinitives and Gerunds
        5.1.3 Relative Clauses
5.2 Prepositions and "to be," Revisited
5.3 Word Meaning Disambiguation
        5.3.1 Pronominal Reference
5.4 Coordinate Constructions
5.5 Ellipsis Expansion
5.6 A Concluding Example
5.7 Summary

Chapter 6: Generating Natural Language from a Conceptual Base

6.0 Introduction
6.1 Overview of Generation Process
6.2 Dictionary Entries
6.3 Morphology and the Verb Kernel
   6.3.1 Plural and Possessive Morphology
   6.3.2 Subject-Verb Agreement and Modals
   6.3.3 Tensing
   6.3.4 Subject-Auxiliary Inversion
6.4 "Advanced" English Syntax
   6.4.1 The Infinitive Construction
   6.4.2 The Possessive Sketchifier
   6.4.3 The Entity-Reference Sketchifier
6.5 A Processing Example
6.6 Summary

Part II: Building a Conversationalist

Chapter 7: Summarizing Knowledge Bases

7.0 Introduction: What to Say versus How to Say It
7.1 Explanations as Summaries
7.2 Explanations in CADHELP
7.3 Representational Overview
7.4 Concept Selection
7.5 An Example
7.6 Summary

Chapter 8: Knowledge-Base Management

8.0 Introduction
8.1 KB Organization
   8.1.1 The Slot-Filler Tree
   8.1.2 Slot-Filler Tree Construction
   8.1.3 Index Quality
   8.1.4 Best-First Ordering of KB Items
8.2 KB Search
   8.2.1 The Tree Search Mechanism
8.3 Performance
8.4 Summary

Chapter 9: Commonsense Reasoning

9.0 Introduction: The Need for Reasoning in Language Understanding
9.1 Deductive Retrieval
9.2 YADR, Yet Another Deductive Retriever
9.3 The YADR Interface
9.4 The YADR Top Level
9.5 Logical Connectives in Antecedent Forms
9.6 Summary

Chapter 10: Putting It All Together: A Goal-Directed Conversationalist

10.0 Introduction
10.1 The ACE Microworld
10.2 A Model of Purposive Conversation
10.3 The Conversational Strategist
10.4 The Conversational Tactician
10.5 The Academic Scheduling Expert
10.6 More Problems in Language Understanding
    10.6.1 Coordinate Constructions and Ellipses
    10.6.2 Defining "And" for the Analyzer
    10.6.3 Using Expectations during Analysis
10.7 More Problems in Language Generation
    10.7.1 Asking Questions
    10.7.2 Producing Coordinate Constructions
    10.7.3 Generating Attributes, Absolute Times, Locales, and Names
10.8 Putting It All Together: A Session with ACE
10.9 Parting Words

Appendix I: The ERKS Types
Appendix II: Source for YADR, Yet Another Deductive Retriever
Appendix III: Glossary of Terms

                        Rich Cullingford

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂22-Jan-86  1833	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #13
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Jan 86  18:32:49 PST
Date: Wed 22 Jan 1986 13:17-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #13
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Thursday, 23 Jan 1986      Volume 4 : Issue 13

Today's Topics:
  Seminars - Controlling Backward Inference (SRI) &
    Automata Approach to Program Verification (MIT) &
    Problem Solving for Distributed Systems (MIT) &
    Problem-Solving Languages (CSLI) &
    Pointwise Circumscription (SU) &
    Methodological Issues in Speech Recognition (Edinburgh) &
    Intuitionistic Logic Programming (UPenn)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed 15 Jan 86 15:22:41-PST
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: Seminar - Controlling Backward Inference (SRI)

                    CONTROLLING BACKWARD INFERENCE

                   Dave Smith (DE2SMITH@SUMEX-AIM)
                       Stanford University

                    11:00 AM, MONDAY, January 20
       SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)

Effective control of inference is a critical problem in Artificial
Intelligence.  Expert systems have made use of powerful
domain-dependent control information to beat the combinatorics of
inference.  However, it is not always feasible or convenient to
provide all of the domain-dependent control that may be needed,
especially for systems that must handle a wide variety of inference
problems, or must function in a changing environment.  In this talk a
powerful domain-independent means of controlling inference is
proposed.  The basic approach is to compute expected cost and
probability of success for different backward inference strategies.
This information is used to select between inference steps and to
compute the best order for processing conjuncts.  The necessary
expected cost and probability calculations rely on simple information
about the contents of the problem solvers database, such as the number
of facts of each given form and the domain sizes for the predicates
and relations involved.

------------------------------

Date: 01/16/86 17:18:02
From: LISA at MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Seminar - Automata Approach to Program Verification (MIT)

       [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.]


                  DATE:  Thursday, January 23, 1986

                  TIME:  3:45 p.m......Refreshments
                        4:00 p.m......Lecture

                         PLACE:  NE43 - 512A


                      "AN AUTOMATA-THEORETIC APPROACH TO
                        AUTOMATIC PROGRAM VERIFICATION"


                                MOSHE Y. VARDI
                          IBM Almaden Research Center


We describe an automata-theoretic approach to automatic verification of
concurrent finite-state programs by model checking.  The basic idea underlying
the approach is that for any temporal formula PHI we can construct an automaton
A(PHI) that accepts precisely the computations that satisfy PHI.  The
model-checking algorithm that results from this approach is much simpler and
cleaner than tableaux-based algorithms.  We also show how the approach can be
extended to probabilistic concurrent finite-state programs.





                                 Albert Meyer
                                     Host

------------------------------

Date: Thu 16 Jan 86 11:49:34-EST
From: John J. Doherty <JOHN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Seminar - Problem Solving for Distributed Systems (MIT)

       [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.]

        Date:     January 24, 1986
        Place:    NE43-512A
        Time:     Refreshments  2:15 P.M.
                  Seminar       2:30 P.M.

        Problem Solving for Distributed Systems:
         An Uplifting Experiment in Progress

                     Herb Krasner
             Member of the Technical Staff
                         MCC
             Software Technology Project

This presentation describes the empirical studies efforts of the STP
Design Process Group focusing on models of the design process.
Preliminary findings of the "lift" experiment are reported, from which
a model of expert designer behavior and high leverage characteristics is
being derived.  Goals of the pilot study, experimental setup, problem,
data analysis technique, hypotheses and subsequent activities are
discussed.  The "lift" experiment was initiated to examine the early
stages of design problem solving behavior prototypical of users of
the futuristic software design environment LEONARDO. It addresses
the large effect of individual differences on productivity data,
and differs from previous studies in its focus on large-scale
design problems.

Host: Irene Greif

------------------------------

Date: Wed 15 Jan 86 16:52:56-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - Problem-Solving Languages (CSLI)

         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


           CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR NEXT THURSDAY, January 23, 1986

   2:15 p.m.            CSLI Seminar
                        Computer Problem Solving Languages, Programming
                        Languages and Mathematics
                        Curtis Abbott (Abbott@xerox)


                   Computer Problem Solving Languages,
                  Programming Languages and Mathematics
                                 by the
             Semantically Rational Computer Languages Group

      Programming languages are constrained by the requirement that their
   expressions must be capable of giving rise to behavior in an
   effective, algorithmically specified way.  Mathematical formalisms,
   and in particular languages of logic, are not so constrained, but
   their applicability is much broader than the class of problems anyone
   would think of ``solving'' with computers.  This suggests, and I
   believe, that formal languages can be designed that are connected with
   the concerns associated with solving problems with computers yet not
   constrained by effectiveness in the way programming languages are.  I
   believe that such languages, which I call ``computer problem solving
   languages,'' provide a more appropriate evolutionary path for
   programming languages than the widely pursued strategy of designing
   ``very high level'' programming languages, and that they can be
   integrated with legitimate programming concerns by use of a
   transformation-oriented methodology.  In this presentation, I will
   give several examples of how this point of view impacts language
   design, examples which arise in Membrane, a computer problem solving
   language I am in the process of designing.           --Curtis Abbot

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jan 86  1639 PST
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - Pointwise Circumscription (SU)


                        Pointwise Circumscription

                           Vladimir Lifschitz
                   Thursday, January 23, 4pm, MJH 252

(I have a few copies of the paper in my office, MJH 362).

                                ABSTRACT

        Circumscription is logical minimization, that is, the
minimization of extensions of predicates subject to restrictions
expressed by predicate formulas.  When several predicates are to be
minimized, circumscription is usually thought of as minimization with
respect to an order defined on vectors of predicates, and different
ways of defining this order correspond to different kinds of
circumscription: parallel and prioritized.
        The purpose of this paper is to discuss the following
principle regarding logical minimization:

                Things should be minimized one at a time.

        This means, first of all, that we propose to express the
circumscription of several predicates by the conjunction of several
minimality conditions, one condition for each predicate. The
difference between parallel and prioritized circumscription will
correspond to different selections of predicates allowed to vary in
each minimization.
        This means, furthermore, that we propose to modify the
definition of circumscription so that it will become an "infinite
conjunction" of "local" minimality conditions; each of these
conditions expresses the impossibility of changing the value of the
predicate from True to False at one point. (Formally, this "infinite
conjunction" will be represented by means of a universal quantifier).
This is what we call "pointwise circumscription".
        We argue that this approach to circumscription is conceptually
simpler than the traditional ``global'' approach and, at the same
time, leads to generalizations with the additional flexibility and
expressive power needed in applications to the theory of commonsense
reasoning. Its power is illustrated, in particular, on a problem posed
by Hanks and McDermott, which apparently cannot be solved using other
existing formalizations of non-monotonic reasoning.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 86 10:44:43 GMT
From: Gideon Sahar <gideon%edai.edinburgh.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
Subject: Seminar - Methodological Issues in Speech Recognition (Edinburgh)

Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh,
and Artificial Intelligence Applications Institute
Edinburgh Artificial Intelligence Seminars


Speaker - Dr. Henry Thompson, Dept. of A.I., University of Edinburgh

Title - Methodological issues in Speech Recognition

Abstract - What methodological issues arise from the belief that fully
automatic high quality unrestricted speech recognition is impossible,
when one has overall technical responsibility for a multi-year
multi-million pound Alvey Large Scale Demonstrator?  I will give a
brief overview of the overall structure of the project, and discuss at
more length two basic issues:

- Why top-down vs. bottom-up is the wrong question, and selectional vs.
  instructional interaction is the right question, and what the right
  answer is.

- How giving up on fully automatic ... changes the way you do things
  in surprising ways.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 86 23:27 EST
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - Intuitionistic Logic Programming (UPenn)

From: Dale Miller <Dale@UPenn>

                       UPenn Math-CS Logic Seminar
           An Intuitionistic Basis for Extending Logic Programming
                              Dale Miller
                Tuesday 28 Jan 86, 4:30 - 6:00, 4E17 DRL

There is a very natural extension to Horn clauses which involves extending
the use of implication.  This extension has a natural operational semantics
which is not sound with respect to classical logic.  We shall show that
intuitionistic logic, via possible worlds semantics, provides the necessary
framework to give a sound and complete justification of this operational
semantics.  This will be done by providing a least fix-point construct of a
Kripke-model.  We shall also show how this logic can be used to provide
logic programming languages with a logical foundations for each of the
following programming features:  program modules, recursive call memo-izing,
and local environments (permanent vs. temporary asserts).  This extension to
logic programming can also simulate various features of negation - not
through logical incompleteness as in negation-by-failure, but through
constructing proofs of a certain kind.

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂24-Jan-86  1537	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #14
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 24 Jan 86  15:36:44 PST
Date: Fri 24 Jan 1986 10:12-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #14
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Friday, 24 Jan 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 14

Today's Topics:
  Conferences - Knowledge Acquisition for KB Systems &
    Symposium on Logic Programming &
    Office Information Systems '86 &
    Uncertainty and KBS,
  Course - Object-Oriented Programming

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 86 11:20:57 pst
From: bcsaic!john@uw-june.arpa
Subject: Workshop - Knowledge Acquisition for KB Systems

                            Call for Participation
          KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION FOR KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS WORKSHOP

                                 Sponsored by
           AMERICIAN ASSOCIATION FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AAAI)

                                Banff, CANADA
                             November 3-7, 1986

The bottleneck in the process of building knowledge-based  systems  is  usally
acquiring  the  appropriate  problem solving knowledge.  The objective of this
workshop is to assemble theoriticians and practioners of AI who recognize  the
need for developing systems that assist the knowledge acquisition process.

To encourage vigorous interaction and exchange of ideas the workshop  will  be
kept  small  -  about 30 participants.  There will be individual presentations
and ample time for technical discussions.  An attempt will be made  to  define
the state-of-the-art and the future research needs.

Papers are invited for consideration in all aspects of  knowledge  acquisition
for knowledge-based systems, including (but not restricted to):

      o  Transfer of expertise - systems which interview experts to obtain and
         structure knowledge.

      o  Transfer of expertise -  manual  knowledge  engineering  interviewing
         methods and techniques.

      o  Induction of knowledge from examples.

      o  Knowledge acquisition methodology.

Four copies of an extended abstract  (up  to  8  pages,  double-spaced)  or  a
full-length  paper should be sent to the workshop chairman before May 1, 1986.
Acceptance notices will be mailed by July  1.   Revised  abstracts  should  be
returned  to  the  chairman  by  October  1,  1986,  so that they may be bound
together for distribution at the workshop.  Potential  attendees  should  also
indicate  their  interest  in  chairing  or  participating  in  special  topic
discussion sessions.

Co-Chairmen:

John Boose (send papers here)
Boeing Artificial Intelligence Center
Boeing Computer Services
M/S 7A-03
PO Box 24346
Seattle, Washington, USA, 98124
(206) 763-5811

and

Brian Gaines
Department of Computer Science
University of Calgary
2500 University Dr. NW
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2N 1N4
(403) 220-6015



Program and local arrangements comittee:

Jeff Bradshaw, Boeing Computer Services
William Clancey, Stanford University
Cathy Kitto, Boeing Computer Services
Janusz Kowalik, Boeing Computer Services
John McDermott, Carnegie-Mellon University
Ryszard Michalski, Univ. of Illinois (tentative)
Art Nagai, Boeing Computer Services
Mildred Shaw, University of Calgary


                        John Boose, Boeing Artficial Intelligence Center
                                7A-03, PO Box 24346,
                                Seattle, Wa., 98124, (206) 763-5811

------------------------------

Date: Thu 9 Jan 86 09:04:20-MST
From: "Robert M. Keller" <Keller@UTAH-20.ARPA>
Subject: Conference - Symposium on Logic Programming

                                    '86 SLP
                                Call for Papers
                     Third Symposium on Logic Programming

                    Sponsored by the IEEE Computer Society

                             September 21-25, 1986

                               Westin Hotel Utah
                              Salt Lake City, UT

The conference solicits papers  on all areas  of logic programming,  including,
but not confined to:

        Applications of logic programming
        Computer architectures for logic programming
        Databases and logic programming
        Logic programming and other language forms
        New language features
        Logic programming systems and implementation
        Parallel logic programming models
        Performance
        Theory

Please submit full papers, indicating accomplishments of substance and novelty,
and including appropriate citations of related work.  The suggested page  limit
is 25 double-spaced pages.  Send eight copies of your manuscript no later  than
15 March 1986 to:

                        Robert M. Keller
                        SLP '86 Program Chairperson
                        Department of Computer Science
                        University of Utah
                        Salt Lake City, UT 84112

Acceptances will be mailed by 30 April 1986.  Camera-ready copy will be due  by
30 June 1986.

Conference Chairperson                  Exhibits Chairperson
Gary Lindstrom, University of Utah      Ross Overbeek, Argonne National Lab.

Tutorials Chairperson                   Local Arrangements Chairperson
George Luger, University of New Mexico  Thomas C. Henderson, University of Utah

                          Program Committee

Francois Bancilhon, MCC                 William Kornfeld, Quintus Systems
John Conery, University of Oregon       Gary Lindstrom, University of Utah
Al Despain, U.C. Berkeley               George Luger, University of New Mexico
Herve Gallaire, ECRC, Munich            Rikio Onai, ICOT/NTT, Tokyo
Seif Haridi, SICS, Sweden               Ross Overbeek, Argonne National  Lab.
Lynette Hirschman, SDC, Paoli           Mark Stickel, SRI International
Peter Kogge, IBM, Owego                 Sten Ake Tarnlund, Uppsala University

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 86 19:22 EST
From: Hewitt@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Conference - OIS-86

Because of the delay in the distribution of the call for papers for OIS-86 in
the Newsletter, we have decided to postpone the deadline for paper submission
from February 1 to March 1, 1986 in order to satisfy the requirements for
broad distribution of the call.

Enclosed please find the updated call for papers which reflects this change:

*******************       C A L L   F O R   P A P E R S
*                 * ----------------------------------------------
*                 *          Third ACM Conference On
*                 *        OFFICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS
*     OIS-86      *
*                 *            October 6-8, 1986
*                 *           Biltmore Plaza Hotel
*                 *              Providence, RI
******************* -------------------------------------------------


General Chair:  Carl Hewitt,          Topics appropriate for this
                MIT                   conference include (but are not
                                      restricted to) the following as they
Program Chair:  Stanley Zdonik,       relate to OIS:
                Brown University
                                         Technologies including Display, Voice,
Treasurer:  Gerald Barber,               Telecommunications, Print, etc.
            Gold Hill Computers
                                         Human Interfaces
Local Arrangements: Andrea Skarra,
                    Brown University     Deployment and Evaluation

An interdisciplinary conference on       System Design and Construction
issues relating to office
information systems (OIS) sponsored      Goals and Values
by ACM/SIGOIS in cooperation with
Brown University and the MIT             Distributed Services and Applications
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.
Submissions from the following           Knowledge Bases and Reasoning
fields are solicited:
                                         Distributed Services and Applications
   Anthropology
   Artificial Intelligence               Indicators and Models
   Cognitive Science
   Computer Science                      Needs and Organizational Factors
   Economics
   Management Science                    Impact of Computer Integrated
   Psychology                            Manufacturing
   Sociology


The program committee includes:

Bob Allen                       Ray Panko
   Bellcore                         University of Hawaii
Guiseppe Attardi                Robert Rosin
   University of Pisa               Syntrex
James Bair                      Erik Sandewall
   Hewlett Packard                  Linkoping University
Gerald Barber                   Walt Scacci
   Gold Hill Computers              USC
Peter de Jong                   Andrea Skarra
   MIT                              Brown University
Irene Greif                     Susan Leigh Star
   MIT                              Tremont Research Institute
Sidney Harris                   Luc Steels
   Georgia State University         University of Brussels
Carl Hewitt                     Sigfried Treu
   MIT                              University of Pittsburgh
Heinz Klein                     Dionysis Tsichritzis
   SUNY                             University of Geneva
Fred Lochovsky                  Eleanor Wynn
   University of Toronto            Brandon Interscience
Fanya Montalvo                  Aki Yonezawa
   MIT                              Tokyo Institute of Technology
Naja Naffah                     Stanley Zdonik
   Bull Transac                    Brown University
Margrethe Olson
   NYU

Professor J.C.R. Licklider of MIT will be the keynote speaker.

Unpublished papers of up to 5000 words (20 double-spaced pages) are
sought.  The first page of each paper must include the following
information: title, the author's name, affiliations, complete mailing
address, telephone number and electronic mail address where
applicable, a maximum 150-word abstract of the paper, and up to five
keywords (important for the correct classification of the paper).  If
there are multiple authors, please indicate who will present the paper
at OIS-86 if the paper is accepted.  Proceeedings will be distributed
at the conference and will later be available from ACM.  Selected
papers will be published in the ACM Transactions on Office Information
Systems.

Please send eight (8) copies of the paper (which must arrive by March
1, 1986) to:

       Prof. Stan Zdonik
       OIS-86 Program Chair
       Computer Science Department
       Brown University
       P.O. Box 1910
       Providence, RI  02912

DIRECT INQUIRIES TO:   Margaret H. Franchi (401) 863-1839.


                            IMPORTANT DATES

     Deadline for Paper Submission (postponed 1 mo.)  March 1, 1986
     Notification of Acceptance:                      April 30, 1986
     Deadline for Final Camera-Ready Copy:            July 1, 1986
     Conference Dates:                                October 6-8, 1986

------------------------------

Date: Thu 23 Jan 86 16:25:50-PST
From: RUSPINI@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: Conference - International Conference on Uncertainty and KBS


                             ANNOUNCEMENT
                                 AND
                           CALL FOR PAPERS

                     INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
                        INFORMATION PROCESSING
                                 AND
                      MANAGEMENT OF UNCERTAINTY
                      IN KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS


Paris, France
June 30 - July 4 1986


Supported by:

Ministere de la Recherche
et de la Technologie
AFCET
Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientiique
Societe Francaise de Theorie de l'Informationn

Chairpersons:

Bernadette Bouchon (France)
Ronald R. Yager (United States)

Purpose of the Conference:

The aim of this Conference is to bring together researchers working
on information, uncertain data processing and related topics. The
management of uncertainty is at the heart of many knowledge-based
systems and a number of approaches have been developed for
representing these types of information.

It is hoped that this Conference will provide a useful exchange
between practitioners and theoreticians using these methods.


INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM COMMITTEE:

J. Bezdek (U.S.A.)              S.Ovchinnikov (U.S.A.)
C. Carlsson (Finland)           J. Pearl (U.S.A.)
A. De Luca (Italy)              B. Picinbono (France)
Deng Ju-Long (China)            J. Pitrat (France)
H.J. Efstathiou (G.B.)          D. Ralescu (U.S.A.)
C. Gueguen (France)             E. Ruspini (U.S.A.)
S. Guiasu (Canada)              A.P. Sage (U.S.A.)
M.M. Gupta (Canada)             G. Shafer (U.S.A.)
J. Kacprzyk (Poland)            J.C. Simon (France)
J.L. Lauriere (France)          M. Sugeno (Japan)
G. Longo (Italy)                E. Trillas (Spain)
J. Lowrance (U.S.A.)            R. Valee (France)
H.T. Nguyen (U.S.A.)            L.A. Zadeh (U.S.A.)
H.J. Zimmermann (Germany)       H. Akdag (France)
M. Mugur-Schacter (France)      G. Cohen (France)
H. Prade (France)               D. Dubois (France)
E. Sanchez (France)             P. Godlewski (France)
M. Terrenoire (France)

TOPICS:

Knowledge Representation                Uncertainty in Expert Systems
Decision Making with Uncertainty        Fuzzy Logic and Fuzzy Reasoning
Representation of Commonsense Knowledge
Possibility Measures                    Mathematical Theory of Evidence
Combinatorial Information Theory
Shannon Theory                          Questionnaire Theory
Pattern Recognition and Image Processing
Clustering and Classification           Information Security
Fuzzy Sets in Operations Research

SUBMISSION INFORMATION

Papers will be selected on the basis of a 500 word abstract.
Communications will be in FRENCH or ENGLISH.

All abstracts should be sent in triplicate to the Conference Secretary:

                          Professor G. Cohen
                  International Conference I.P.M.U.
                               E.N.S.T.
                           46, rue Barrault
                         75013 PARIS, FRANCE

SUBMISSION DEADLINE: FEBRUARY 15, 1986

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 86 15:58:24 PST
From: tektronix!mako.TEK!jans@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Course - Object-Oriented Programming

Tektronix will be holding four day Introductory Smalltalk-80 classes at three
locations in February, March and April, 1986.  This class will introduce the
student to object oriented programming, enable the student to extend the
Smalltalk language by adding new methods and classes, and prepare the student
to write simple applications, using the model-view-controller paradigm.  Class
notes, two textbooks, and four lunches are included.  Participants should be
experienced in at least one high level programming language.

Also planned is an Advanced Smalltalk-80 class, which will enable the student
to utilize advanced techniques of Smalltalk, including advanced model-view-
controller concepts, project management and team programming, multi-process
programming, and external processes and language interfaces.  Participants will
be expected to understand the major classes of Smalltalk and should have three
to six months of Smalltalk programming experience.

Schedule:
        Intorductory:   Gaithersburg, Maryland  18-21 February 1986
        Introductory:   Dallas, Texas           17-20 March 1986
        Advanced:       Beaverton, Oregon        1- 4 April 1986
        Introductory:   Irvine, California      14-17 April 1986

Contact:
        Sandi Unger, (503)685-2941 for registration information, or
        Mary Wells, (503)685-2947 for information on course content.


:::::: Artificial   Intelligence   Machines   ---   Smalltalk   Project ::::::
:::::: Jan Steinman             Box 1000, MS 60-405     (w)503/685-2956 ::::::
:::::: tektronix!tekecs!jans    Wilsonville, OR 97070   (h)503/657-7703 ::::::

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂24-Jan-86  2029	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #15
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 24 Jan 86  20:29:46 PST
Date: Fri 24 Jan 1986 10:20-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #15
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Friday, 24 Jan 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 15

Today's Topics:
  Query - RT/PC Common Lisp,
  Binding - Robert Leary @ San Diego Supercomputer Center,
  Corrections - "Meta" Quote & MRS,
  AI Tools - Representation of Uncertainty in MRS,
  Policy - Gatewaying of AIList from Usenet Net.AI &
    Relevance of Theoretical Computer Science to AI

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Jan 1986 19:14-EST
From: NGALL@G.BBN.COM
Subject: RT/PC Common Lisp Query

Has anyone heard anything about a Common Lisp for the RT/PC (IBM's
new Risc Engineering Workstation)? (By Lucid perhaps?)

        -- Nick

------------------------------

Date: 22 January 1986 1326-PST (Wednesday)
From: west@nprdc.arpa (Larry West)
Subject: Robert Leary @ San Diego Supercomputer Center

In re Dallas Webster's short note about Dr. Robert Leary [AIList V4 #11]:

First, a minor correction: UCSD's zip code is 92093, not 92903.

Dr. Leary is with GA Technologies (San Diego) which operates the
Supercomputer center for the University.    You might be able to reach
him thru UCSD, but I think GA Technologies would be a better bet.
The phone book lists:
        GA Technologies, Inc.
        10955 John Jay Hopkins Dr.
and this is my guess:
        La Jolla, CA 92037

Phone (general info): 619-455-3000

An old, but possibly still valid, net address for him is:
        leary%gav@lll-mfe.ARPA

Larry West, UCSD Institute for Cognitive Science, west@nprdc.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1986  08:31:26
From: rjb%allegra.btl.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
Subject: V4 #11: Quote about "meta"


(Regarding W. Hamscher's response in V4 #11 to a query about MRS:)

Please - let's give credit where it's deserved:  "Anything you can do,
I can do meta" should be attributed to David Levy (via Brian Smith).
I merely used it in a talk at AAAI-80 (hopefully attributing it
to David).

Ron Brachman

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 86 17:13:58 CST
From: veach%ukans.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
Subject: Correction.

In a recent issue the full name MRS was incorrectly reported.

        MRS = "Modifiable Representation System"

        (source - "MRS Manual", Michael R. Genesereth, et. al.
                1980, Stanford Heuristic Programming Project)

------------------------------

Date: Thu 23 Jan 86 16:30:46-PST
From: Yung-Jen Hsu <Hsu@SU-SUSHI.ARPA>
Subject: MRS distribution & maintenance

Walter,

Contrary to what you said in your recent message, which appeared in
AILIST V4 #11, about the distribution and maintenace of MRS, I'm NOT the
person in charge of the matter.  If anyone would like to get a copy of
the MRS system, I believe that the best person(s) to contact is Arthur
Whitney (whitney@sumex) and/or Michael Genesereth (genesereth@sumex).

Best regards.

Jane Hsu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jan 86 16:00:21 PST (Wed)
From: whiting@sri-spam
Subject: MRS info.

Re:
     Date: Fri, 17 Jan 86
     From: Tom Scott
     Subject: MRS

     Can it (MRS) handle ...   Certainty factors?

The MRS that is available for common distribution doesn't have the
facility for dealing with uncertainty.  An implementation of Dempster's
Rule has been incorporated into a non-official version.  There are some
fairly strong restrictions on this version, but an application using
this version has been implemented.  It seems the situation is more
"MRS's official release doesn't include the ability to deal with
uncertainty, YET", than "MRS can't handle certainty factors".

[Note: "Can it handle Certainty factors?"  has been generalized to "Does
MRS have the ability to deal with uncertainty?".  Certainty factors are
generally associated with MYCIN/E-MYCIN's methodology for dealing with
uncertainty.]

As an aside, Stuart Russell Esq., has put together a manual which is
quite good, "The Compleat (sic) Guide to MRS", Stanford Knowledge
Systems Laboratory Report No. KSL-85-12.

Kevin Whiting

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 86 16:40:07 PST
From: Kenneth I. Laws <AIList-Request@SRI-AI>
Subject: Resumption of AIList Gatewaying

Eric Fair, the Berkeley Postmaster, has been handling the gatewaying
of AIList to the Usenet mod.ai distribution.  [The "mod" stands for
"moderated".]  He has offered to gateway net.ai submissions back to
AIList if we wish.

AIList used to have such an arrangement until our SRI-UNIX gateway
broke.  At that time AIList traffic dropped by about 50%, primarily
through the loss of cross-net discussions (as opposed to seminar
and conference announcements).  I do not know whether net.ai continues
to carry a great deal of non-AIList traffic, nor whether there would
be an increase in useful interchanges if we again make it easy for
academic/foreign Usenet readers to submit material to AIList.  I do not
know whether Usenet readers >>like<< having a "private" discussion
channel in addition to the AIList stream that they get.

I expect that the connection would increase my workload, but I am
willing to take on the moderation as long as no one objects to my just
ignoring net.ai comments that do not seem relevant.  (Sending explict
rejection notices involves numerous hassles, and hardly seems worth
the effort since the submitter has already reached his net.ai audience
and would be unaware of whether AIList also carried the text.)

So, does anyone feel strongly one way or the other?  The default is
to go ahead with the connection, at least until it proves unmanageable.
(I would rather drop seminar notices than lose personal interaction.)

					-- Ken Laws

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 86 15:57:16 -0200
From: mcvax!lifia!rit@seismo.CSS.GOV (Jean-Francois Rit )
Subject: Relevance of Theoretical Computer Science to AI


To: AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI.ARPA
In article <8601151921.AA17286@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> you write:

>  Today's Topics:
>    Description - European Association for Theoretical Computer Science
>  ....
>     In our experience the only reason that a computer
>  scientist who is either actively engaged or interested in
>  theoretical computer science is not a member of EATCS...

I found this message quite interesting...At least because it made me wonder
why it was in mod.ai!
Our Laboratory (LIFIA) clusters research groups in Theoretical CS and in AI.
There are many CS labs in Grenoble, and AI could have as well been separated
from TCS. However I find it quite hard to define any common interest other
than "doing the soft for the future super-computer" which hardly leads to any
tight cooperation (this is my personnal opinion only).

Furthermore, one of the leaders of EATC is M. Nivat :

>TCS Editor:       M. Nivat, Paris
>Past Presidents:  M. Nivat, Paris (1972-1977)

A semestrial course on CS  of whom I attended, where I learnt much (:-) about
automata and grammars but never heard the words AI. (it is said in my lab that
he is not a strong supporter of AI but these are rumors that I could not
personnally verify).

So, are there any AI researchers who feel actively engaged or interested in
TCS?                                      ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
For example, in working or publishing in one of the following fields :

>     Typical topics discussed during recent ICALP conferences are:
>  computability, automata theory, formal language theory, analysis of
>  algorithms, computational complexity, mathematical aspects of
>  programming language definition, logic and semantics of programming
>  languages, foundations of logic programming, theorem proving, software
>  specification, computational geometry, data types and data structures,
>  theory of data bases and knowledge based systems, cryptography, VLSI
>  structures, parallel and distributed computing, models of concurrency
>  and robotics.
       ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑ (oh oh! robotics indeed?)

>  ... Behind all this lie the major problems of under-
>  standing the nature of computation and its relation to computing
>  methodology. While "Theoretical Computer Science" remains mathematical
>  and abstract in spirit, it derives its motivation from the problems of
>  practical computation.

I don't feel that a major problem for AI researchers is understanding the
nature of computation, I think the AI point of view is much (maybe too much)
broader or at least OPEN toward The "real" universe.
I repeat I'm not opposed to TCS, I just wonder which real links bound TCS and
AI. I'd like to know what other AI , and TCS (if they read mod.ai (-:)
researchers think about that (that's why I submit this to the news).

Jean-Francois Rit
Laboratoire d'Informatique Fondamentale et d'Intelligence Artificielle
BP 68
38402 Saint-Martin d'Heres cedex
                        Disclaimer: This is only my postal address!
UUCP: ...{mcvax,vmucnam}!lifia!rit


  [I was the one who forwarded the message to AIList -- perhaps
  I have been unduly influenced by the AI "neats" here at SRI-AI.
  I am a "scruffy" (or hacker or pragmatist), but there seem to be
  plenty of people in AI who hold that the problems will fall apart if
  and only if we solve the underlying difficult cases rigorously.  There
  are those in the Representation and Reasoning Group here at the AI
  Center who consider automata theory an appropriate basis for robotic
  perception and action.  Theorem proving is popular with our planning
  group and also underlies part of our natural language understanding
  effort.  Grammar and formal language theories are used in NL
  understanding, although I don't know whether they are considered AI.
  Semantics of [certain] programming languages has been a topic on
  AIList and on the Prolog Digest, and may generate renewed interest
  when CommonLoops and other object-oriented languages become commonly
  available.  Foundations of logic programming is an obvious match, and
  computational geometry is important to those of us in vision research.
  The theory of data bases is intermingled with data abstraction and
  conceptual modeling, as well as with practical development of efficient
  Prolog systems; it will become more important to AI as knowledge-based
  systems become larger.  Parallel and distributed computing (or, at least,
  problem solving) are evidently of interest to the AIers on the PARSYM
  discussion list.  Models of concurrency are important in multiagent
  planning.

  A Stanford professor has requested that I not forward any more articles
  from the "Theory Net" distribution.  I will comply, but I do not agree
  that AI is (or should be) disjoint from CS theory.  The results of
  CS research will be of use in AI, and the needs an theories of AI might
  well inspire further CS research.  -- KIL]

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂29-Jan-86  2343	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #16
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 29 Jan 86  23:43:10 PST
Date: Wed 29 Jan 1986 20:41-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #16
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Thursday, 30 Jan 1986      Volume 4 : Issue 16

Today's Topics:
  Journal Issue - Blackboard Models for AI in Engineering,
  Seminars - Naive Physics: Knowledge in Pieces (UCB) &
    Term Rewriting, Theorem Proving, Logic Programming (CSLI) &
    The Algebra of Time Intervals (SRI) &
    Machine Learning and Economics (RU) &
    Semi-Applicative Programming (UPenn) &
    Integrating Syntax and Semantics (Edinburgh) &
    Feature Structures in Unification Grammars (UPenn)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Jan 86 23:21:15 est
From: Michael Bushnell <mb@ohm.ECE.CMU.EDU>
Subject: Call for Papers - Blackboard Models for AI in Engineering


======================================================================
|                      CALL FOR PAPERS for the                       |
|                                                                    |
|                     INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR                      |
|                                                                    |
|                ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN ENGINEERING              |
|                    October, 1986 Special Issue                     |
|                                                                    |
| Guest Editors:                                                     |
|                      Pierre Haren, INRIA, France.                  |
|              Mike Bushnell, Carnegie-Mellon University             |
|                                                                    |
| Manuscripts in US should be sent to:                               |
|               Mike Bushnell                                        |
|               Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering    |
|               Carnegie-Mellon University                           |
|               Pittsburgh, PA 15213                                 |
|               USA                                                  |
|               (ARPAnet: mb@ohm.ece.cmu.edu)                        |
| Deadline for receiving manuscripts:  April 1st, 1986               |
|                                                                    |
======================================================================


We are soliciting papers  for a special issue of the International Journal
for AI in Engineering.  This issue will focus on the AI Blackboard model, as
applied to engineering problems.  Papers describing the application of the
Blackboard model to problems in the disciplines of Electrical Engineering,
Computer Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Mechanical
Engineering, Metallurgy, Materials Science, Robotics, and areas of Computer
Science are appropriate.  Papers describing applications to other
disciplines may also be appropriate.  In addition, papers discussing AI
tools that are particularly appropriate for Engineering applications are
most welcome, along with book reviews, letters to the editor, conference
reports, and other relevant news.

All submissions must be original papers written in English and will be
refereed.  The copyright of published papers will be vested with the
publishers.  Contributions will be classified as research papers and
research notes, of up to 5000 equivalent words, or as review articles of up
to 10,000 equivalent words.  Authors wishing to prepare review articles
should contact the editors in advance.  Manuscripts should be typed
double-spaced with wide margins, on one side of the paper only, and
submitted in triplicate.  The article should be preceded by a summary of
not more than 200 words describing the entire paper.  A list of key words is
also required.  The article title should be brief and stated on a separate
page with the author's names and addresses.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 86 16:47:34 PST
From: admin%cogsci@BERKELEY.EDU (Cognitive Science Program)
Subject: Seminar - Naive Physics: Knowledge in Pieces (UCB)

                         BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                                     Spring 1986
                        Cognitive Science Seminar - IDS 237B

                        Tuesday, January 28, 11:00 - 12:30
[NB. New Location]                2515 Tolman Hall
                      Discussion: 12:30 - 1:30  [location TBA]

                               ``Knowledge in Pieces''
                                  Andrea A. diSessa
                  Math Science and Technology, School of Education

                                      Abstract
                Naive  Physics  concerns  expectations,  descriptions  and
           explanations about the way the physical world works that people
           seem spontaneously to develop through interaction with  it.   A
           recent  upswing in interest in this area, particularly concern-
           ing the relation of naive physics to  the  learning  of  school
           physics,  has  yielded significant interesting data, but little
           in the way of a theoretical foundation.  I would like  to  pro-
           vide  a  sketch of a developing theoretical frame together with
           many examples that illustrate it.

                In broad strokes, one sees a rich but rather shallow (in a
           sense  I  will  define),  loosely coupled knowledge system with
           elements that originate often as minimal abstractions of common
           phenomena.  Rather than a "change of theory" or even a shift in
           content of the  knowledge  system,  it  seems  that  developing
           understanding  of  classroom physics may better be described in
           terms of a change in  structure  that  includes  selection  and
           integration  of  naive knowledge elements into a system that is
           much less data-driven, less context dependent, more capable  of
           "reliable"  (in  a  technical  sense) descriptions and explana-
           tions.  In addition I would like to discuss  some  hypothetical
           changes at a systematic level that do look more like changes of
           theory or belief.  Finally, I would like to consider the poten-
           tial  application  of  this work to other domains of knowledge,
           and the relation  to  other  perspectives  on  the  problem  of
           knowledge.

------------------------------

Date: Wed 22 Jan 86 17:32:26-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - Term Rewriting, Theorem Proving, Logic Programming (CSLI)

         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


           CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR NEXT THURSDAY, January 30, 1986

   2:15 p.m.            CSLI Seminar
     Ventura Hall       Term Rewriting Systems and Application to Automated
     Trailer Classroom  Theorem Proving and Logic Programming
                        Helene Kirchner (Kirchner@sri-ai)


                Term Rewriting Systems and Application to
             Automated Theorem Proving and Logic Programming
                             Helene Kirchner

      Term rewriting systems are sets of rules (i.e. directed equations)
   used to compute equivalent terms in an equational theory.  Term
   rewriting systems are required to be terminating and confluent in
   order to ensure that any computation terminates and does not depend on
   the choice of applied rules.  Completion of term rewriting systems
   consists of building, from a set of non-directed equations, a
   confluent and terminating set of rules that has the same deductive
   power.  After a brief description of these two notions, their
   application in two different domains are illustrated:
        - automated theorem proving in equational and first-order
          logic,
        - construction of interpretors for logic programming languages
          mixing relational and functional features.

------------------------------

Date: Thu 23 Jan 86 11:50:10-PST
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: Seminar - The Algebra of Time Intervals (SRI)

                     THE ALGEBRA OF TIME INTERVALS

                    Peter Ladkin (LADKIN@KESTREL)
                         Kestrel Institute

                    11:00 AM, MONDAY, January 27
       SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)

We build on work of James Allen (Maintaining Knowledge about Temporal
Intervals, CACM Nov 1983), who suggested a calculus of time intervals.
Allen's intervals are all convex (no gaps).  We shall present a
taxonomy of *natural* relations between non-convex [i.e.,
non-contiguous] intervals, and illustrate the expressiveness of this
subclass, with examples from the domain of project management.  In
collaboration with Roger Maddux, we have new mathematical results
concerning both Allen's calculus, and our own. We shall present as
many of these as time permits.

The talk represents work in progress. We are currently designing and
implementing a time expert for the Refine system at Kestrel Institute,
which will include the interval calculus.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jan 86 09:18:06 EST
From: Tom <mitchell@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Subject: Seminar - Machine Learning and Economics (RU)

[Forwarded from the Rutgers bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


ML Colloquium talk

Title: Market Traders: Intelligent Distributed Systems
                In an Open World
Speaker: Prof. Spencer Star
         Laval University, Quebec
Date: Friday, Jan 24
Time: 11 am
Location: Hill 423

        Professor Spencer Star is a computer scientist/economist who
works on simulating economic markets.  He will be spending the coming
year on sabbatical at Rutgers to work on incorporating a machine
learning component into his current market simulations.  He is
visiting now in order to meet the department and to get some feedback
on his current research ideas on learning.  Below is part of an
abstract from his recent paper.  [...]

                                -Tom Mitchell


  Market Traders: Intelligent Distributed Systems In an Open World

Although markets are at the heart of modern microeconomics, there has
been relatively little attention paid to disequilibriun states and to
the decision-making rules used by traders within markets.  I am
interested in the procedures that traders use to determine when and
how much they will bid, how they adapt their behaviour to a changing
market environment, and the effects of their adaptive behaviour on the
market's disequilibrium path.  This paper reports on research to study
these questions with the aid of a computer program that represents a
market with interacting and independent knowledge-based traders.  The
program is callled TRADER.

In a series of experiments with TRADER I find that market efficiency
requires a minimum number of intelligent traders with a capacity to
learn, but when their knowledge is reflected in the market bids and
asks, naive traders can enter the markets and sometimes do better than
the expert traders.  Moreover, the entrance of naive traders in a
market that is already functioning efficiently does not degrade the
market's performance.  Since learning by independent agents appears to
be a key element in understanding and using open systems, the focus of
future research will be on studying learing and adaptive processes by
intelligent agents in open systems.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 86 15:41 EST
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - Semi-Applicative Programming (UPenn)


                   SEMI-APPLICATIVE PROGRAMMING: AN EXAMPLE
                                 N.S Sridharan
                   BBN Labs, AI Department, Cambridge MA

                          3pm Thursday, January 30, 1986
                   216 Moore, University of Pennsylvania

Most  current  parallel  programming  languages  are designed with a sequential
programming language as the base language and have added constructs that  allow
parallel  execution.    We  are experimenting with an applicative base language
that has implicit parallelism everywhere, and then we introduce constructs that
inhibit  parallelism.    The  base  language uses pure LISP as a foundation and
blends in interesting features  of  Prolog  and  FP.    Proper  utilization  of
available machine resources is a crucial concern in functional programming.  We
advocate several techniques of controlling the behavior of functional  programs
without  changing  their  meaning  or  functionality:  program  annotation with
constructs that have benign side-effects, program transformation  and  adaptive
scheduling.  This combination yields us a semi-applicative programming language
and an interesting programming methodology.

In this talk we give some background information on our project, its  aims  and
scope  and  report  on  work in progress in the area of parallel algorithms for
context-free parsing.

Starting with the specification of a  context-free  recognizer,  we  have  been
successful   in   deriving   variants   of   the   recognition   algorithm   of
Cocke-Kasami-Younger.  One version is the  CKY  algorithm  in  parallel.    The
second  version  includes  a  top-down  predictor to limit the work done by the
bottom-up recognizer.  The third version uses a cost measure  over  derivations
and  produces  minimal  cost  parses using a dynamic programming technique.  In
another line of development, we arrive at a  parallel  version  of  the  Earley
algorithm.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 86 10:19:18 GMT
From: Gideon Sahar <gideon%edai.edinburgh.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
Subject: Seminar - Integrating Syntax and Semantics (Edinburgh)

EDINBURGH AI SEMINARS

Date:    29th January l985
Time:    2.00 p.m.
Place:  Department of Artificial Intelligence
        Seminar Room - F10
        80 South Bridge
        EDINBURGH.


Dr. Ewan Klein, Centre for Cognitive Studies, University of Edinburgh
will give a seminar entitled - "Integrating syntax and semantics :
unification categorial grammar as a tool for a natural language
processing".

This talk will report on work carried out at the Centre for Cognitive
Science By Henk Zeevat, Jo Calder and Ewan Klein as part of an ESPRIT
project on natural language and graphics interfaces to a knowledge-base.

In recent years there has been a surge of interest in syntactic
parsers which exploit linguistically-motivated non-transformatinal
grammar formalisms:  instances are the GPSG chart parser at
Hewlett-Packard, Palo Alto, and the PATR-II parser at SRI, Menlo Park.
By contrast, progress in the development of tractable, truth-conditional
semantic formalisms for parsing has lagged behind.

Unification categorial grammar (UCG) employs three resources which
significantly improve this situation.   The first is Kamp's theory of
Discourse Representation:  this is essentially a first-order calculus
which nevertheless provides a more elegant treatment of NL anaphora and
quantification than standard first-order logic.

Second, the grammar encodes both syntactic  and semantic information in
the same data structures, namely directed acyclic graphs, and
manipulates them with same operation, namely unification.   Third, the
fundamental grammar rule is that of categorial grammar, namely
functional application.   Since the grammar objects contain both
syntactic and semantic information, any rule application will
simultaneously produce syntactic and semantic results.

UCG translates readily into a PATR-like declarative formalism, for
which Calder has written a Prolog implementation called PIMPLE.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 86 15:41 EST
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - Feature Structures in Unification Grammars (UPenn)


                      LOGICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR FEATURE
                      STRUCTURES IN UNIFICATION GRAMMARS

        William C. Rounds and Robert Kasper, University of Michigan

                       3pm Tuesday, February 4, 1986
                   216 Moore, University of Pennsylvania

In  this  paper  we  show  how  to  use a simple modal logic to give a complete
axiomatization of disjunctively specified feature or record structures commonly
used  in unification-based grammar formalisms in computational linguistics. The
logic was  originally  developed  as  a  logic  to  explain  the  semantics  of
concurrency,  so  this  is a radically different application. We prove a normal
form result based on the  idea  of  Nerode  equivalence  from  finite  automata
theory, and we show that the satisfiability problem for our logical formulas is
NP-complete. This last result is a little surprising since our formulas do  not
contain   negation.     Finally,  we  show  how  the  unification  problem  for
term-rewriting systems can be expressed as the satisfiability problem  for  our
formulas.

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂30-Jan-86  0155	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #17
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Jan 86  01:54:52 PST
Date: Wed 29 Jan 1986 20:54-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #17
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Thursday, 30 Jan 1986      Volume 4 : Issue 17

Today's Topics:
  Queries - LISP-Based COBOL Parser or Compiler & AI Koans,
  AI Tools - Common Lisp for RT PC,
  Fiction - Pseudoscience Jargon in 2010,
  Policy - Theoretical CS,
  Games & Expert Systems - Hangman,
  Reports - MRS Manual & ISSCO Working Papers

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue 28 Jan 86 21:06:57-CST
From: John Hartman <CS.HARTMAN@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: COBOL parser or compiler needed in Lisp environment


Does anyone know of a Cobol parser or compiler that is written in
LISP? (or PASCAL or will otherwise run on a LISP machine or DEC-20)
[This is not a joke!]

I'm working on a program understanding/program transformation
system.  The target language at the moment is Cobol because
there are lots of unstructured Cobol programs and commercial systems
that attempt to restructure them automatically.  AI program
understanding can improve the process.  To demonstrate this, I need a
Cobol parser, and would rather find one than build one.  Does anyone
have any pointers?

Thanks,
John Hartman

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 86 14:14:03 PST
From: "Douglas J. Trainor" <trainor@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU>
Subject: ai koans


Has anyone heard any good ai koans over the past three years???

    [][]  Douglas J. Trainor
    [][]  a pair of size 9 capri pants

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1986  11:43 EST
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Subject: Common Lisp for RT PC


In response to Nick Gall's query about Common Lisp for the RT PC:

We at CMU have been working behind the scenes for some time to port our
Spice/Accent operating system from the now-defunct Perq machine to the
new IBM workstation, now dubbed the RT PC.  As a part of that effort, we
have ported the Spice Lisp implementation of Common Lisp, including the
Hemlock editor.  This port is mainly the work of Dave McDonald, with
assists from Rob Maclachlan and Skef Wholey.  Lisp and Hemlock are now
running pretty well, with only a few finishing touches to be added and a
lot of tuning to be done.  There are still some holes in the Accent
operating system for this machine, but we are working feverishly to
patch them up.

We are in the process of taking some benchmarks on the Lisp now.  Early
indications show the speed of the pre-tuning RT PC Lisp to be roughly in
the ballpark (give or take a factor of two) of the Symbolics 3600 and
the Sun 3, though you have to be careful with declarations and
give up most of the runtime checking to go that fast.  (Also necessary
on other stock hardware like Sun, but not on Symbolics.)

Please do not flood us with request for this system.  The Lisp is not
particularly to port over to any flavor of Unix, and Accent is not yet
ready for use outside the friendly confines of CMU.  At some point in
the future, we may make the whole package available WITHOUT ANY SUPPORT,
for users elsewhere who can tolerate unsupported university-quality
software, but before we do that we will have to think very hard about
how to minimize the hassles to all concerned.  If we do that, I'll see
that people reading this list hear about it.

IBM has not announced any plans for introducing a supported Common Lisp
product on the RT PC's officially sanctioned unix-based operating
system.  I believe that there would be great demand for such a product,
but what their plans are I can't say.

-- Scott

------------------------------

Date: Wed 22 Jan 86 18:57:57-PST
From: Bill Poser <POSER@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Pseudoscience Jargon

What exactly is a "call-seeking" computer? Anything to do with a
"come-from" statement?

------------------------------

Date: Tue 28 Jan 86 07:26:53-PST
From: Ted Markowitz <G.TJM@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: 2010 and H-Mobius Loops

I've checked my copy of 2010 and reviewed Dr. Chandra's explanation
of HAL's paranoia.  The H-Mobious Loop phenomenon often occurs in
"autonomous GOAL-seeking programs".  Not a bad lay-description of
a program that got confused as to what to do next?

--ted

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Jan 86 12:52:16 CST
From: veach%ukans.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
Subject: Comment on EATCS.

Concerning the posting of the "European Association for
Theoretical Computer Science" announcement in vol 4:6,
I would like to make the following comments:

        1)  I agree whole-heartedly with the editorial comment
            which Ken Laws made at the end of vol 4:15 (except
            for his acquiescence to the Stanford professor's request
            that similar postings not be made in the future).

        2)  My reading of this Digest leads me to believe that
            the contributers and the readers as a whole, span a
            wide range of interests.  This disparity of interests
            has been with AI since its begining and indeed is what
            makes AI what it is.  We should recognize that with such
            a variety of research in AI (from vision to mathematical
            logic; design and fabrication of robotic limbs to analysis
            of cognitive processes; etc...) there is and should be a
            tremendous pool of resources which we individually draw
            from and collectively share.  One does not have to look far
            to find common ground among researchers who delve into
            such distinct subjects (graph theory, predicate calculus,
            statistical analysis, etc.).

In conclusion, rather than restrict the flow of information, I hope
that as we see information which could benefit the community, we would
share it.

Glenn Veach (veach@ukans.csnet)

------------------------------

Date: 26 January 1986 1902-PST (Sunday)
From: west@nprdc.arpa (Larry West)
Subject: Theoretical CS vis-a`-vis AI

In AIList V4 #15, Jean-Francois Rit said:

``I don't feel that a major problem for AI researchers is understanding
the nature of computation, I think the AI point of view is much (maybe
too much) broader or at least OPEN toward The "real" universe.''

I agree that those who are doing Expert Systems or similar
kinds of programming need not worry too much about what a
computation is nor how it is achieved.   But those in Cognitive
Science -- those interested in how brains do the things
they do so well -- might well be interested in formalisms
to help grasp the underlying processes of computation.   On
the other hand, my prejudice is that these are not yet
understood in Theoretical Computer Science, either, and may
not even be of interest to those in the field (TCS).

Still, Parallel Distributed Processing or Connectionism seems
to hold much promise for lower-level information processing,
and perhaps higher-level as well, though that's harder to
see at this point.    See, e.g., Hinton & Anderson's *Parallel
Models of Associative Memory* (Erlbaum, 1981), or Hinton's and
Feldman's articles in the April 1985 BYTE magazine, or Minsky
and Papert's *Perceptrons* or ... well, further references
supplied on demand.

My opinion would thus be not to exclude TCS out of hand,
but don't go out of your way (KIL) looking for articles/
messages/seminar announcements relevant to AIList, either.

Larry West (programmer)    west@nprdc.ARPA
UCSD Institute for Cognitive Science
La Jolla, CA  92093


  [That seems a fair summary of the feedback I've received, and
  of the general AIList screening policy.  -- KIL]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 86 22:19:21 EST
From: Moorthy <moorthy%rpics.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Hangman

We have developed a computer program to play hangman by itself. Here
the computer both guesses a word and tries to find what the guessed
word is. This program is a variation of hangman available under unix
4.2. The program to guess the words is partly rule based (these rules
are obtained by talking to an "expert") and partly searches the
dictionary judiciously. The programs are written in C and uses system
calls to AWK for searching various subsets of dictionary. We have
tested the program fairly exhaustively and it plays reasonably well.
If anyone is interested in knowing more about the program, you could
contact moorthy@rpics. The developers of this program are Patrick
Harubin, a junior in Computer Science at R.P.I and myself.

                      Krishnamoorthy
                      Department of Computer Science
                      R.P.I., Troy NY 12181.

------------------------------

Date: Tue 28 Jan 86 12:28:22-PST
From: Stuart Russell <RUSSELL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: mrs manual

The Compleat Guide to MRS is now available as a Stanford CS report,
number STAN-CS-85-1080. To obtain a copy send mail to Kathy Berg
(BERG@SCORE.ARPA) or write to her at Comp Sci Dept, Stanford, CA 94305.

Stuart Russell (RUSSELL@SUMEX)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Jan 86 13:24:44 pst
From: Mike Rosner <rosner%cui.unige.chunet%ubc.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: ISSCO working papers

                     Fondazione Dalle Molle
                             Geneva

                             ISSCO
                         WORKING PAPERS


No. 46 (1981)
M Rosner
Three Strategic Goals in Conversational Openings

This  paper  tries  to  explain  a  short  transcript    of    a
conversational  opening  as  completely  as  possible within the
framework which takes conversational behaviour as defined by the
operation  of  a  sohisticated  planning mechanism. It is argued
that a critical role is played  by  the  satifaction,  for  each
participant,  of  three  strategic  goals relating to attention,
identification, and greeting.  Additional  tactics  for  gaining
information  are also described as necessary to account for this
transcript.

No. 47 (1983)
F di Primio & Th Christaller
A Poor Man's Flavor System

This paper is the result of an attempt to  understand  'flavors',
the  object oriented programming system in Lispmachine Lisp. The
authors argue that the basic principles of such systems are  not
easily  accessible  to the programming public, because papers on
the subject rarely discuss concrete  details.  Accordingly,  the
authors'  approach  is  pedagogical,  and  takes  the  form of a
description of the evolution of  their  own  flavor  system.  An
appendix  contains  programming  examples  that  are sufficienly
detailed to enable an average Lisp programmer to build a  flavor
system,    and    experiment  with  the  essential  concepts  of
object-oriented programming.


No. 48 (1984)
Eric Wehrli
A Government-Binding Parser for French

This paper describes a parser for French based on an  adaptation
of  Chomsky's  Government  and  Binding  theory.  Reflecting the
modular  conception  of  GB-grammars,  the  parser  consists  of
several  modules corresponding to some of the subtheories of the
grammar, such as X bar, binding, etc. Making an extensive use of
lexical  information  and  following strategies which attempt to
take advantage of the basic  properties  of  natural  languages,
this parser is powerful enough to produce all of the grammatical
structures of sentences  for  a  fairly  substantial  subset  of
French.  At  the  same  time, it is restricted enough to avoid a
proliferation of alternative analyses, even with highly  complex
constructions. Particular attention has been paid to the problem
of the  grammatical  interpretation  of  wh-phrases,  to  clitic
constructions,  as well as to the organisation and management of
the lexicon.

No 49 (1985)
Patrick Shann
AI Approaches to Machine Translation

This paper examines  some  experimental  AI  systems  that  were
specifically    developed    for   machine  translation  (Wilks'
Preference Semantics, the Yale projects, Salat and  CONTRA).  It
concentrates  on  the  different types of meaning representation
used, and the nature of the knowledge used for the  solution  of
difficult  problems  in MT. To explore particular AI approaches,
the resolution of several types of ambiguity is  discussed  from
the point of view of different systems.


No. 50 (1985)
Beat Buchmann & Susan Warwick
Machine Translation: Pre-ALPAC history, Post-ALPAC overview

This paper gives a historical overview of the field  of  Machine
Translation  (MT). The ALPAC report, the now well-known landmark
in the history of MT, serves to delimit the two sections of this
paper.  The  first  section,  Pre-ALPAC  history,  looks in some
detail  at  the  hopeful  beginnings,   the    first    euphoric
developments,  and  the  onsetting  disillusionment  in  MT. The
second  section,  Post-ALPAC  overview,  describes  more  recent
developments  on  the  basis of current prototype and commercial
systems. It also reviews  some  of  the  basic  theoretical  and
practical issues in the field.


No 51 (1985)
Rod Johnson & Mike Rosner
Software Engineering for Machine Translation

In this paper we discuss the desirable properties of a  software
environment  for MT development, starting from the position that
succesful MT depends on a coherent  theory  of  translation.  We
maintain  that  such  an environment should not just provide for
the  construction  of  instances  of  MT  systems  within   some
preconceived  (and  probably  weak)  theoretical  framework, but
should also offer tools for rapid implementation and  evaluation
of  a  variety  of  experimental  theories. A discussion of some
potentially interesting properties of theories of  language  and
translation is followed by a description of a prototype software
system which is designed to facilitate practical experimentation
with such theories.



Requests for these papers should be addressed to

        ISSCO working papers
        54 route des Acacias
        1227 Geneva Switzerland

The  price  per  paper,  including  air  mail,  is  SFr  10  (or
equivalent).  Cheques  should be made payable to "Institut Dalle
Molle"

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂30-Jan-86  0336	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #18
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Jan 86  03:36:30 PST
Date: Wed 29 Jan 1986 21:06-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #18
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Thursday, 30 Jan 1986      Volume 4 : Issue 18

Today's Topics:
  Machine Learning - Self Knowledge & Perceptrons,
  Theory - Definition of Symbol

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu 23 Jan 86 04:46:01-PST
From: Bill Park <PARK@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Speech Learning

This stuff about Sejnowski's speaking reminds me eerily of the parts
of Asimov's @i{I, Robot}, that tells how Susan Calvin's career began:

From "Robbie," where Susan is observing a little girl named Gloria
trying to get some help during a tour of the Museum of Science and
Industry ...

        "The Talking Robot was a @i{tour de force}, a thoroughly
        impractical device, possessing publicity value only.  Once an
        hour, an escorted group stood before it and asked questions
        of the robot engineer in charge in careful whispers.  Those
        the engineer decided were suitable for the robot's circuits
        were transmitted to the Talking Robot.

        "It was rather dull.  It may be nice to know that the square
        of fourteen is one hundred ninety-six, that the temperature
        at the moment is 72 degrees Fahrenheit, and the air-pressure
        30.02 inches of mercury, that the atomic weight of sodium is
        23, but one doesn't really need a robot for that.  One
        especially does not need an unwieldy, totaly immobile mass of
        wires and coils spreading over twnty-five square yards." ...

        ... ``There was an oily whir of gears and a mechanically
        timbred voice boomed out in words that lacked accent and
        intonation, `I -- am -- the -- robot -- that -- talks.'

        ``Gloria stared at it ruefully.  It did talk, but the
        sound came from inside somewheres.  There was no @i{face} to
        talk to.  She said, `Can you help me, Mr. Robot, sir?'

        ``The Talking Robot was designed to answer questions, and
        only such questions as it could answer had ever been put to
        it.  It was quite confident of its ability, therefore.  `I
        -- can -- help -- you.'

        ``'Thank you, Mr. Robot, sir.  Have you seen Robbie?'

        ``'Who -- is -- Robbie?'

        ```He's a robot, Mr. Robot, sir.''  She stretched to
        tip-toes. ``He's about so high, Mr. Robot, sir, only higher,
        and he's very nice.  He's got a head, you know.  I mean you
        haven't, but he has, Mr. Robot sir.'

        ``The Talking Robot had been left behind, `A -- robot?'

        ```Yes, Mr. Robot, sir.  A robot just like you, except he
        can't talk, of course, and -- looks like a real person.'

        ```A -- robot -- like -- me?'

        ```Yes, Mr. Robot, sir.'

        ```To which the Talking Robot's only response was an erratic
        splutter and an occasional incoherent sound.  The radical
        generalization offered it, i.e., its existence, not as a
        particular object, but as a member of a general group, was
        too much for it.  Loyally, it tried to encompass the concept
        and half a dozen coils burnt out.  Little warning signals
        were buzzing.'

        ``(The girl in her mid -teens left at that point.  She had
        enough for her Physics-1 paper on `Practical Aspects of
        Robotics.'  This paper was Susan Calvin's first of many on
        the subject.)''

------------------------------

Date: 23-Jan-86 12:52:19-PST
From: jbn@FORD-WDL1
Subject: Perceptrons-historical note

      Since Perceptron-type systems seem to be making a comeback, a
historical note may be useful.

      The original Perceptron was developed in the early 1950s, and
was a weighted-learning type scheme using electromechanical storage, with
relay coils driving potentiometers through rachets being the basic
learning mechanism.  The original machine used to be on display at the
Smithsonian's Museum of History and Technology, (now called the Museum of
American History); it was a sizable unit, about the size of a VAX 11/780.
But it is no longer on display; I've been checking with the Smithsonian.
It has been moved out to their storage facility in Prince George's County,
Maryland.  It's not gone forever; the collection is rotated through the
museum.  If there's sufficient interest, they may put it back on display
again.

      Another unit in the same collection has relevance to this digest;
Parts of Reservisor, the first airline reservations system, built for American
Airlines around 1954, are still on display; they have a ticket agent's terminal
and the huge magnetic drum.  Contrast this with Minksy's recent claims seen
here that airline reservation systems were invented by someone at the MIT AI
lab in the 1960s.

                                        John Nagle

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jan 86 14:41:45 EST
From: Mark.Derthick@G.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: What is a Symbol?

This is a response to David Plaut's post (V4 #9) in which he maintains that
connectionist systems can exhibit intelligent behavior and don't use
symbols.  He suggests that either he is wrong about one of these two points,
or that the Physical Symbol System Hypothesis is wrong, and seeks a good
definition of 'symbol.

First, taking the PSSH seriously as subject to empirical confirmation
requires that there be a precise definition of symbol.  That is, symbol is
not an undefined primitive for Cognitive Science, as point is for geometry.
I claim no one has provided an adequate definition.  Below is an admittedly
inadequate attempt, together with particular examples for which the
definition breaks down.

1) It seems that a symbol is foremost a formal entity.  It is atomic, and owes
its meaning to formal relationships it bears to other symbols.  Any internal
structure a [physical] symbol might posess is not relevant to its meaning.
The only structures a symbol processor processes are symbol structures.

2) The processing of symbols requires an interpreter.  The link between the
physical symbols and their physical interrelationships on the one hand, and
their meaning on the other, is provided by the interpreter.

3) Typically, a symbol processor can store a symbol in many physically
distinct locations, and can make multiple copies of a symbol.  For instance,
in a Lisp blocks world program, many symbols for blocks will have copies of
the symbol for table on their property lists.  Many functionally identical
memory locations are being used to store the symbols, and each copy is
identical in the sense that it is physically the same bit pattern.  I can't
pin down what about the ability to copy symbols arbitrarily is necessary,
but I think something important lurks here.

The alternative to symbolic representations, analog (or direct)
representations, do not lend themselves to copying so easily.  For instance,
on a map, distance relations between cities are encoded as distances between
circles on paper.  Many relations are represented, as in the case with the
blocks world, but you can't make a copy of the circle representing a city.
If it's not in the right place, it just won't represent that city.

4) Symbols are discrete.  This point is where connectionist representations
seem to diverge most from prototypical symbols.  For instance, in Dave
Touretzky's connectionist production system model (IJCAI 85), working memory
elements are represented by patterns of activity over units.  A particular
element is judged to be present if a sufficiently large subset of the units
representing the pattern for that element are on.  Although he uses this
thresholding technique to enable discrete answers to be given to the user,
what is going on inside the machine is a continuum.  One can take the
pattern for (goal clear block1) and make a sequence of very fine grained
changes until it becomes the pattern for (goal held block2).



To show where my definition breaks down, consider numbers as represented in
Lisp.  I don't think they are symbols, but I'm not sure.  First, functions
such as ash and bit-test are highly representation dependent.  Everybody
knows that computers use two's complement binary representation for
arithmetic.  If they didn't, but used cons cells to build up numbers from
set theory for instance, it would take all day to compute 3 ** 5.  Computers
really really have special purpose hardware to do arithmetic, and computer
programmers, at least sometimes, think in terms of ALU's, not number theory,
when they program.  So the Lisp object 14 isn'sometimes t atomic, sometimes
its really 1110.

Its easy to see that the above argument is trying to expose numbers as
existing at a lower level than real Lisp symbols.  At the digital logic
level, then, bits would be symbols, and the interpreter would be the adders
and gates that implement the semantics of arithmetic.  Similarly, it may be
the case that connectionist system use symbols, but that they do not
correspond to, eg working memory elements, but to some lower level object.

So a definition of "symbol" must be relative to a point of view.  With this
in mind, it seems that confirmation of the Physical Symbol System Hypothesis
turns on whether an intelligent agent must be a symbol processor, viewed
from the knowledge level.  If knowledge level concepts are represented as
structured objects, and only indirectly as symbols at some lower level, I
would take it as disconfirmation of the hypothesis.

I welcome refinements to the above definition, and comments on whether Lisp
numbers are symbols, or whether ALU bits are symbols.

Mark Derthick
mad@g.cs.cmu.edu

------------------------------

Date: 27 January 1986 1532-PST (Monday)
From: hestenes@nprdc.arpa (Eric Hestenes)
Subject: Re: What is a symbol?

Article 125 of net.ai:

In article <724@k.cs.cmu.edu>, dcp@k.cs.cmu.edu (David Plaut) writes:
> It seems there are three ways out of this dilemma:
>
>       (1) deny that connectionist systems are capable, in
>           principle, of "true" general intelligent action;
>       (2) reject the Physical Symbol System Hypothesis; or
>       (3) refine our notion of a symbol to encompass the operation
>           and behavior of connectionist systems.
>
> (1) seems difficult (but I suppose not impossible) to argue for, and since I
> don't think AI is quite ready to agree to (2), I'm hoping for help with (3)
> - Any suggestions?    > David Plaut   > (dcp@k.cs.cmu.edu)


Symbol is unfortunately an abused word in AI. Symbol can be used in several
senses, and when you mix them things seem illogical, even though they are not.

Sense 1: A symbol is a token used to represent some aspect or element
         of the real world.

Sense 2: A symbol is a chunk of knowledge / human memory that is of a certain
         character. ( e.g. predicates, with whole word or phrase size units )

While PDP / connectionist models may not appear to involve symbolic processes,
meaning mental processes that operate on whole chunks of knowledge that
consistute symbols  they DO assign tokens as structures that represent some
aspect or element. For instance, if a vision program takes a set of
bits from a visual array as input, then at that point each of the bits are
assigned a symbol and then a computation is performed upon the symbol.
Given that pdp networks do have this primitive characterization in every
situation, they fit Newell's definition of a Physical Symbol System
[paraphrased as] "a broad class of systems capable of having and manipulating
symbols, yet realizable in the physical world." The key is to realize
that while the information that is assigned to a token can vary quite
significantly, as in connectionist versus high level symbolic systems,
the fact that a token has been assigned a value remains, and the manipulation
of that newly created symbol is carried out in either kind of system.

Many connectionists like to think of pdp systems as incorporating
"microfeatures" or "sub-symbolic" knowledge. However, by this they do not mean
that their microfeatures are not symbols themselves. Rather they are actively
comparing themselves against traditional AI models that often insist on using
a single token for a whole schema ( word, idea, concept, production ) rather
than for the underlying mental structures that might characterize a word.
A classical example is the ( now old ) natural language approach to thinking
that parses phrases into trees of symbols. Not even the natural language
people would contend that the contents of memory resembles that tree of
symbols in terms of storage. In this case the knowledge that is significant to
the program is encoded as a whole word. The connectionist might create a
system that parses the very same sentences, with the only difference being
how symbols are assigned and manipulated. In spite of their different
approach, the connectionist version is still a physical symbol system in the
sense of Newell.

This point would be moot if one could create a connectionist machine that
computed exactly the same function as the high-level machine, including
manipulating high level symbols as whole. While both languages are Turing
equivalent, one has yet to see a system that can compile a high-level
programming language with a connectionist network. The problems with creating
such a machine are many; however, it is entirely possible, if not probable.
See the paper for a Turing <--> Symbol System proof.


Reference: Newell, Allen. Physical Symbol Systems.
Cognitive Science 4, 135-183 (1980).

Copy me on replies.

Eric Hestenes
Institute for Cognitive Science, C-015
UC San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093
arpanet: hestenes@nprdc.ARPA
other: ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdics!hestenes or hestenes@sdics.UUCP

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂03-Feb-86  1355	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #19
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 3 Feb 86  13:48:29 PST
Date: Mon  3 Feb 1986 10:13-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #19
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest             Monday, 3 Feb 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 19

Today's Topics:
  Queries - Prolog for Compiler Writing & LISP Compilers &
    LISP Tutorial Source Code & Mathematical Structure of OOPL &
    Equation Solver,
  Binding - Supercomputer Center & Grenoble Labs,
  History - Airline Reservation Systems,
  Report - Calculus of Partially-Ordered Type Structures,
  Review - Technology Review Article

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 86 08:02:00 EST
From: "INFO1::ELDER" <elder@info1.decnet>
Reply-to: "INFO1::ELDER" <elder@info1.decnet>
Subject: Prolog for Compiler Writing

Greg Elder

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 86 13:56:44 CST
From: Al Gaspar <gaspar@ALMSA-1.ARPA>
Subject: LISP Compilers?

A friend that doesn't have access to the net asked me to post this query.
What brands of Common LISP would run best on a VAX 780 under UNIX Sys V.2?
Any and all recommendations would be appreciated.  Please reply to me
directly as I don't subscribe to AILIST.  If there are enough replies,
I'll summarize to the net.

Thanks in advance--

Al Gaspar       <gaspar@almsa-1.arpa>
USAMC ALMSA, ATTN:  AMXAL-OW, Box 1578, St. Louis, MO  63188-1578
COMMERCIAL:  (314) 263-5118     AUTOVON:  693-5118
seismo!gaspar@almsa-1.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 0  0 00:00:00 EST
From: "Don Mcdougall" <veda@paxrv-nes.ARPA>
Reply-to: "Don Mcdougall" <veda@paxrv-nes.ARPA>
Subject: request for LISP source code

             [Interesting date on this message!  -- KIL]

  I am teaching an AI course for the continuing education program at
St. Mary's College in Southern Maryland. This is my first time teaching
LISP and I would appreciate access to the source code for "project-
sized" LISP programs or any other teaching aids or material. We are
using the 2nd edition of both Winston's AI and Winston&Horne's LISP.
I hate to ask for help, but we are pretty far from mainstream AI
down here and my students and I all have full time jobs so any help we
can get from the professional AI community would be greatly
appreciated by all of us.

                                        Bob Woodruff
                                        Veda@paxrv-nes.arpa

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 86  8:58:50 EST
From: "Srinivasan Krishnamurthy" <1438@NJIT-EIES.MAILNET>
Subject: Mathematical Structure of OOPL

I would like to hear about any definitive work on the mathematical
structure of object oriented programming languages (eg. smalltalk).
I am interested in the current status of the subject. Reference to
a good review will be most helpful. Would also appreciate receiving
papers or reports on the subject.

 My netaddress is : srini%NJIT-EIES.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA

 U.S Postal Address:
Srinivasan Krishnamurthy
COMSAT LABS, (NTD) RM:7142
22300 Comsat Drive
Clarksburg, MD-20871
 Tel: (301)428-4531(W)

  Thanks.
  Srini.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 86 16:10:06 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!topaz!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!dpb@ucbvax.berkeley.
      edu  (Paul Benjamin)
Subject: Re: Equation solver

> I am looking for a program that can solve simple algebraic expressions
> of the type:
>
>               10x - 15 = 5
>
> This system would have the capability of SIMPLIFYING expressions, EXPANDING
> expressions and SOLVING expressions (where possible).
> Note that I am looking for simple solutions, I have no need of the extensive
> capabilities of MACSYMA or some such thing.
> It needs to work on fairly small (pdp-11, non-unix) machines.
> It's purpose is to act a a simple but patient tutor in pre-algebra.
> Consequently it must give hints, advice, etc.
> Any help, pointers, suggestions, etc. from people is much appreciated.
>
> Dick Pierce
> ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!teddy!rdp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
> Organization: GenRad, Inc., Concord, Mass.

You may want to look at Sleeman's work, although it is more along the
lines of simulating student's solutions to such tasks. It can be
found with related work in "Intelligent Tutoring Systems", published
by Academic Press in 1982. The editors are D. Sleeman and J. S. Brown.

Good luck.
Paul Benjamin

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 86 16:01:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!mozetic@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Equation solver

Some work on algebraic manipulation was done at the Edinburgh Univ.
(Dept. of AI) by A.Bundy and others. I can give you few references:

   Bundy, Silver: Preparing Equations for Change in Unknown,
   IJCAI-81, and DAI research paper 159.
   Bundy, Sterling: Meta-level Inference in Algebra, DAI 164.
   Bundy, Welham: Using Meta-level Inference for Selective
   Application of Multiple Rewrite Rules in Algebraic Manipulation,
   Artificial Intelligence 16(2), 1981.

You may also consult the book:
   Bundy: The Computer Modelling of Mathematical Reasoning,
   Academic Press, 1983.

Good luck.

------------------------------

Date: Thu 30 Jan 86 15:26:58-CST
From: CMP.BARC@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
Subject: Re: Supercomputers and AI

Sorry about the transposition of the zip code for UCSD.  Maybe I can
make up for it with the correct zip for GA Technologies.  The mailing
address they seem to giving out for Supercomputer Center
communications is

                              GA Technologies
                              P.O. Box 85608
                              San Diego, CA 92138

Dallas Webster
CMP.BARC@R20.UTexas.Edu
ut-sally!batman!dallas

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 86 21:38:16 GMT
From: "mcvax!vmucnam!imag!lifia!rit"@SEISMO.ARPA
Subject: Grenoble labs


Someone mailed me for enquiries about computer science Grenoble labs in
response to an article in mod.ai. I lost his message, I'll answer him if he
remails.

Jean-Francois Rit
Laboratoire d'Informatique Fondamentale et d'Intelligence Artificielle
BP 68
38402 Saint-Martin d'Heres cedex
                                  Disclaimer: This is only my postal address!
UUCP: ...{mcvax,vmucnam}!lifia!rit
decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!
    mcvax!vmucnam!imag!lifia!rit@ucbvax.berkeley.edu

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 86 07:59:38 EST
From: Alan Bawden <ALAN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Contrast

    Date: 23-Jan-86 12:52:19-PST
    From: jbn at FORD-WDL1
    ...  Contrast this with Minksy's recent claims seen here that airline
    reservation systems were invented by someone at the MIT AI lab in the
    1960s.

I decided to take a close look at this contrast.  After searching through
the recent archives, the only mention by Minsky of airline reservation
systems that I can find is:

    And I'm pretty sure that the first practical airline reservation was
    designed by Danny Bobrow of the BBN AI group around 1966.!

Now that I have refreshed my memory with what he actually said, I think the
contrast is not quite as unflattering.  Given the use of the adjective
``practical'', someone might even be able to make a case that he is right.

------------------------------

Date: Thu 30 Jan 86 15:15:53-CST
From: AI.HASSAN@MCC.ARPA
Subject: Calculus of Partially-Ordered Type Structures


This message is an commmon answer to all those individuals (thanks for
your interest) that have been asking me for copies of my Ph.D.
Dissertation (A Lattice-Theoretic Approach to Computation Based on a
Calculus of Partially-Ordered Type Structures).

My thesis is being revised for publication as a book. I am out of copies
the version I've been sending. You may:

        .write or call U.of Penn. CIS dpt. 215-898-8540 (Ph.D. 9/84)
        .write University Microfilms at Ann-Arbor, MI
        .get hold of one from a friend and ask a nice secretary to xerox it
        .steal one (no one will mind: it's a cheap value!).
        .or you can wait and bear with my slow work in translating a
         big Scribe mess into an even larger LaTeX mess(*)---send me
         another message in, oh, about 3 months.

Hope that'll help.
Thanks for your patience.

Cheers,

Hassan

(*) By the way, any info of programs that do that is welcome!

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 86 17:18:00 GMT
From: decvax!cca!ada-uts!richw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Technology Review article

Has anyone read the article about AI in the February issue of
"Technology Review"?  You can't miss it -- the cover says something
like: "In 25 years, AI has still not lived up to its promises and
there's no reason to think it ever will" (not a direct quote; I don't
have the copy with me).  General comments?
-- Rich Wagner
       "Relax!  They're just programs..."
P.S.  You might notice that about 10 pages into the issue, there's
      an ad for some AI system.  I bet the advertisers were real
      pleased about the issue's contents...

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 86 14:25:24 GMT
From: vax135!miles@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Miles Murdocca)
Subject: Re: Technology Review article

The [Technology Review] article was written by the Dreyfuss brothers,
who are famous for making bold statements that AI will never meet the
expectations of the people who fund AI research.  They make the claim
that people do not learn to ride a bike by being told how to do it,
but by a trial and error method that isn't represented symbolically.
They use this argument and a few others such as the lack of a
representation for emotions to support their view that AI researchers
are wasting their sponsors' money by knowingly heading down dead-ends.

As I recall ["Machine Learning", Michalski et al, Ch 1], there are two
basic forms of learning: 'knowledge acquisition' and 'skill refinement'.
The Dreyfuss duo seems to be using a skill refinement problem to refute
the work going on in knowledge acquisition.  The distinction between the
two types of learning was recognized by AI researchers years ago, and I
feel that the Dreyfuss two lack credibility since they fail to align their
arguments with the taxonomy of the field.

    Miles Murdocca, 4G-538, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Crawfords Corner Rd,
    Holmdel, NJ, 07733, (201) 949-2504, ...{ihnp4}!vax135!miles

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂07-Feb-86  1353	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #20
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Feb 86  13:53:02 PST
Date: Fri  7 Feb 1986 10:29-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #20
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest             Friday, 7 Feb 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 20

Today's Topics:
  Seminars - Logics of Programmes (Edinburgh) &
    The Origins of Logic (UCB) &
    A Fuzzy Inference Engine (UPenn) &
    Intuitionistic Logic Programming Language (CMU) &
    Minsky and Dreyfus on AI (USantaClara),
  Conferences - Intelligent Robotic Systems &
    Cognitive Science Society

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Feb 86 12:20:32 GMT
From: Gideon Sahar <gideon%edai.edinburgh.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
Subject: Seminar - Logics of Programmes (Edinburgh)

                        EDINBURGH AI SEMINARS

Date:           5th February 1986
Time:           2pm
Place:          Department of Artificial Intelligence
                Forrest Hill Seminar Room


Dr. D.C. McCarty, Center for Cognitive Sciences, University of Edinburgh,
will give a seminar entitled - `Logics of Programmes: Some Constructive
Comments'.


The talk will give an introduction to and overview of the applications of
constructive logic to programme verification. Three topics will be of
interest: the idea that functional interpretations of constructive set
theory are `high level' compilers; the relations between constructive
logic and Reynolds' `specification logic'; and the use of a constructive
meta theory in giving completeness proofs for hoare-style logics. We
will pre-suppose only a basic knowledge of mathematical logic; the
requisite technicalities from constructive logic and programme verification
will be explained in the talk.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Feb 86 15:40:45 PST
From: admin%cogsci@berkeley.edu (Cognitive Science Program)
Subject: Seminar - The Origins of Logic (UCB)


                 BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM

                 Cognitive Science Seminar - IDS 237B

                  Tuesday, February 11, 11:00 - 12:30
                           2515 Tolman Hall
                       Discussion: 12:30 - 1:30
                       3105 Tolman (Beach Room)

                       ``The Origins of Logic''
                             Jonas  Langer
                     Department of Psychology, UCB

         I will try to show that logical cognition  (1)  originates
    during the first year of infancy and (2) begins to be represen-
    tational during the second year of infancy.  This includes pro-
    posing  some  of its initial structural features.  These claims
    imply that (a) a symbolic language is  not  necessary  for  the
    origins  of logical cognition and (b) that ordinary language is
    not necessary for  its  initial  representational  development.
    Supporting  data  will  be drawn from J. Langer, The Origins of
    Logic: Six to Twelve Months, Academic Press, 1980, and The Ori-
    gins of Logic: One to Two Years, Academic Press, 1986.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Feb 86 12:10 EST
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - A Fuzzy Inference Engine (UPenn)


             A VLSI IMPLEMENTATION OF FUZZY INFERENCE ENGINE:
                     TOWARD AN EXPERT SYSTEM ON A CHIP

      Hiroyuki Watanabe, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel, New Jersey

                      3pm Tuesday, February 11, 1986
                   216 Moore, University of Pennsylvania

This  talk  describes  a  VLSI implementation of an inference mechanism to cope
with uncertainty and to perform approximate reasoning.  Some  details  of  VLSI
layout  design  is presented.  Design of an inference mechanism is based on the
"max-min operation" of fuzzy set theory for an  effective  and  real-time  use.
This   inference  mechanism  can  handle  imprecise  and  uncertain  knowledge;
therefore, it  can  represent  human  expert  knowledge  and  simulate  his/her
reasoning  processes.  An inference mechanism has been realized by using custom
CMOS technology which emphasizes simplicity, extensibility and efficiency.  For
example,  all  rules  are  executed  in  parallel  for  efficiency.   Result of
preliminary tests indicates that the inference engine can perform approximately
80,000 Fuzzy Logical Inferences Per Second (FLIPS).

This  chip is designed for the application of rule-based expert system paradigm
in real-time control.   Potential  application  of  such  inference  engine  is
real-time  decision-making  in  the  area  of  command and control, intelligent
robotic system and chemical process control.

------------------------------

Date: 5 February 1986 1529-EST
From: Theona Stefanis@A.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Seminar - Intuitionistic Logic Programming Language (CMU)

               JOINT LOGIC COLLOQUIUM (CMU, U of Pgh)

                          Dale Miller
            CIS Department, University of Pennsylvania

Date:  Thursday February 13
Time:  3 pm
Place:  4605 Wean Hall

A Logic Programming Language Based on Intuitionistic Higher-Order Logic.

Dale Miller
CIS Department, University of Pennsylvania

In this talk, we present a programming language whose operational
semantics can be understood as searching for proofs with in a subset of
intuitionistic higher-order logic.  Kripke-models over a universe of
higher-order terms provide a model theoretic semantics for our
programs.  Such models can be computed as least fix points.  This logical
language is a natural extension to Horn clause logic and the
programming language based on it has many features not available in
simple Horn clause based programming languages.  In particular, this
programming language can manipulate higher-order functions in a manner
similar to many functional programming languages.  An interesting notion
of parametric modules is also available by virtue of the behavior of
implication within an intuitionistic logic.  An interpreter for this
language must perform unification of higher-order terms.  If time
permits, we illustrate how this feature makes possible the very clean
implementation of certain kinds of program transformation algorithms.

------------------------------

Date: Tue 4 Feb 86 14:45:07-PST
From: HOFFMANN@SRI-KL.ARPA
Subject: Seminars - Minsky and Dreyfus on AI (USantaClara)


Two talks on AI at Mayer Theater, University of Santa Clara;
both talks are free, first come, first served.

Marvin Minsky - "Intelligence and Creativity"
                 Monday, February 10th, 8:00 PM

Hubert Dreyfus - "Limits of AI"
                  Thursday, February 20th, 8:00 PM

  For additional information call Mayer Theater, (408) 554-4015

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 1986 10:40:22 EST
From: Martin Marietta <MMDA@USC-ISI.ARPA>
Subject: Conference - Intelligent Robotic Systems


                        SPIE's Symposium on

        Advances in Intelligent Robotics Systems, including

                o  Intelligent Robots and Computer Vision Conference

                o  Mobile Robots Conference

                o  Optics, Illumination, and Image Sensing for Machine Vision

                o  Space Station Automation

                o  Automated Inspection and Measurement

The Conference(s) take place October 26-31, 1986, at the Hyatt Regency in
Cambridge, MA.  General Chairman is David Casasent, Carnegie-Mellon University.

Abstract due date:  15 April  (200-300 word abstract)
Manuscript due date:  29 September

For author application or further information, contact
                SPIE Technical Program Committee
                PO Box 10
                Bellingham, WA  98227-0010
                (206) 676-3290

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 86 07:52:16 pst
From: gluck@SU-PSYCH (Mark Gluck)
Subject: Conference - Cognitive Science Society


8th Annual Cognitive Science Society Conference will be held
at U. Mass/Amherst from August 15th to 17th.

Submission Deadline: March 14, 1986

to:  Charles Clifton
     Department of Psychology
     U. Mass.
     Amherst, MA  01003

Include: author's name, address, and telephone number
         up to four keywords
         four copies of abstract (100-250 words)
         four copies of paper (4K words for presentation; 2K for
                               poster)

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂07-Feb-86  1707	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #21
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Feb 86  17:06:42 PST
Date: Fri  7 Feb 1986 11:19-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #21
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest             Friday, 7 Feb 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 21

Today's Topics:
  Queries - ISIS & BIB-Format AI References,
  Logic Programming - Prolog for Compiler Writing,
  Expert Systems & Reports - MRS,
  Theory - Dreyfus Article in Technology Review

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 04 Feb 86 16:19:44 cet
From: WMORTENS%ESTEC.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: Query -- ISIS

From: Uffe K. Mortensen ESA ( The European Space Agency )

Does anybody here know what 'ISIS' is ? I have been told it is a commercial
package for planning/scheduling problems, but I would like to have more
detailed information ( vendor, etc ).

-- Uffe.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 86 18:59:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!mklein@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Bib Format AI References Request

I am interested in getting references in bib format for the following
topics, ordered with the stuff most important to me now on top:
        * distributed problem solving
        * machine learning
        * planning
        * vision
If you have any references available, please send them to:
        mklein@uiucdcsb
                        Thanks!
                                Mark Klein

------------------------------

Date: 06 Feb 86 09:37:54 +1100 (Thu)
From: Isaac Balbin <munnari!mulga.oz!isaac@seismo.CSS.GOV>
Subject: Re: Prolog for Compiler Writing

I have not added compilers for prolog written in prolog, nor stuff on
compiling techniques for prolog.

%A H. Derby
%T Using Logic Programming for Compiling APL
%R Technical Report 84-5134
%I Department of Computer Science
%I California Institute of Technology
%C Los Angeles, California
%D 1984

%A G.A. Edgar
%T A Compiler Written in Prolog
%J Dr. Dobbs Journal
%D May, 1985

%A Harald Ganzinger
%A Michael Hanus
%T Modular Logic Programming of Compilers
%J Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Symposium on Logic Programming
%C Boston, USA
%D July, 1985

%A D.H.D. Warren
%T Logic for Compiler Writing
%J Software Practice and Experience
%V 10
%N 1
%P 97-125
%D 1980
%O Also available as DAI Research Paper 44
from Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh

                Isaac Balbin
===========================
UUCP:   {seismo,mcvax,ukc,ubc-vision}!munnari!isaac
ARPA:   isaac%munnari.oz@seismo.css.gov
CSNET:  isaac%munnari.oz@australia

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 4 Feb 86 15:46:28 EST
From: munnari!goanna.oz!wjb@seismo.CSS.GOV (Warwick Bolam)
Subject: Correction to correction to name of MRS


  >From: veach%ukans.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
  >
  >In a recent issue the full name MRS was incorrectly reported.
  >
  >        MRS = "Modifiable Representation System"
  >
  >        (source - "MRS Manual", Michael R. Genesereth, et. al.
  >                1980, Stanford Heuristic Programming Project)


In the bibliography of the paper "Partial Programs", Michael R Genesereth,
1984, Stanford HPP:

        M. R. Genesereth, R. Greiner, D. E. Smith: "MRS - A Meta-Level
        Representation System", HPP-83-27, Stanford University HPP, 1983.

Is there anyone who REALLY knows what MRS stands for?  I have a number of
MRS documents and NONE of them says "MRS stand for ..."

Warwick Bolam,
Computing Dept, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology,
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

------------------------------

Date: Mon 3 Feb 86 17:15:26-PST
From: Stuart Russell <RUSSELL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: MRS manual

I have been asked to point out to those who have requested copies of
the MRS manual, or who intend to do so, that a nominal fee of $6.00
(plus tax if in CA) is suggested. At .004 cents per exqusitely chosen word,
it's a bargain.
Stuart Russell (RUSSELL@SUMEX)

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 13:30:31 GMT
From: Bob Stine <stine@edn-vax.arpa>
Subject: re: Dreyfus article

"Why Computers May Never Think Like People," a recent
diatribe by the brothers Dreyfus, has several problems.
First and foremost is that AI research is implicitly
identified as the development of rule-based systems.
All of the well known limitations of rule-based systems
are inappropriately attributed to AI research as a whole.

There is a deeper problem with the article, that perhaps
springs from a misguided humanism.  The article claims
that machines will never duplicate human performance in
cognitive tasks, because humans have "intuition."  These
passages would read very much the same if 'magic' were
substituted for 'intuition' - "Human begins have a
magic intelligence that reasoning machines simply cannot
match."  "... a boxer seems to recognize the moment to
begin an attack... ... the boxer is using his magic".

The Dreyfus brothers claim that they are not "Luddites,"
that they are not opposed to technology per se, but just
to wasting time and money on AI research.  The basis of
their position is that some aspect of human intelligence
is inherently beyond human comprehension.

There certainly are things that humans will never know.
But no one thing is inherently unknowable.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 4 Feb 86 09:58:53 CST
From: sandon@ai.wisc.edu (Pete Sandon)
Subject: Knowledge Aquisition -vs- Skill Refinement


   This is not to defend the Dreyfus brothers, since I have yet to read
their books. On the other hand, I think they make a good point, though
with a bad example, in emphasizing learning as a process of refinement.
The example related in Miles Murdocca's submission is that of learning
to ride a bike through trial and error. The reason the example is a bad
one, is that it fits into the category of skill refinement as AI
researchers would use the term. This leads to the argument that Dreyfus
and Dreyfus are missing the critical distinction between knowledge
acquisition and skill refinement.

   My feeling is that too much is made of this distinction. Had the
example been one of learning to distinguish fruits from vegetables,
or one of learning the symptoms of a class of diseases well enough
to diagnose them, this argument would not have arisen. Clearly these
involve knowledge acquisition rather than skill refinement. And yet, it
could be argued, and perhaps is argued by the Dreyfus's, that what
the AI researchers consider to be knowledge acquisition should be
just as much a refinement process guided by trial and error as learning
to ride a bike. Whereas AI considers concept formation to occur as the
acquisition of discrete chunks of knowledge, an alternative is to use
the gradual acquisition of evidence to support one concept definition
over another, in a manner similar to skill refinement.

   Of course, if this criticism of AI is correct, AI has already
answered it. The use of connectionist models, and the corresponding
learning mechanisms currently being studied, provide just the sort
of cognitive models that support this refinement type of learning
through trial and error.

--Pete Sandon

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 86 17:24:42 GMT
From: nike!caip!im4u!milano!pcook@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Technology Review article

In article <7500002@ada-uts.UUCP>, richw@ada-uts.UUCP writes:
>
> Has anyone read the article about AI in the February issue of
> "Technology Review"?  You can't miss it -- the cover says something
> like: "In 25 years, AI has still not lived up to its promises and
> there's no reason to think it ever will" (not a direct quote; I don't
> have the copy with me).  General comments?
>
This article is a plug for a book and  use of a current topic to get back at
the AI community for an imagined snub.  Hubert Dreyfus was stood up by
John McCarthy of Stanford at a debate on a third echelon public tv
station in the bay area, and is still mad.
First, the premise:  AI, expert systems, and knowledge-rule based systems
have been overly optimistic in their promises and stand short of delivered
results.  Probably true, but many of the systems, once implemented, lose
their mystical qualities, and look a lot like other computer applications.
It's the ones that are in the buliding process which seem to present
extravagant claims.
As presented, however, the article is a shrill cry rather than a reasoned
response.  It leans heavily on proof by intense assertion.  As a pilot
I find examples which range from dubious to incorrect.  As a scientist I
object to the gee whiz Reader's Digest tone.  As a retired Air Force Officer
I object to the position that the commander's common sense is the ideal form
of combat decision making.  And as a philosopher (albeit not expert) I object
to the muddy intellectual approach, rife with questionable presuppositions,
faulty dilemmas, and illogical conclusions.
I agree that the topic is worthy of discussion-  our work to realize the
potential of computers must not degenerate into a fad which will fade
from the scene.  But I object to a diatribe where advances in the field
are dismissed as trivial because current systems do not equal human
performance.
--
       ...Pete                  Peter G. Cook                      Lt. Colonel
pcook@mcc.arpa                  Liaison, Motorola, Inc.            USAFR(Ret)
ut-sally!im4u!milano!pcook      MCC-Software Technology Program
512-834-3348                    9430 Research Blvd. Suite 200
                                Austin, Texas 78759


  [There are, of course, two sides to the McCarthy incident.  As I recall
  from an old SU-BBoard message, McCarthy had agreed to an interview under
  the impression that he would be on the program alone.  At the last moment
  it was mentioned that Dreyfus had also been invited.  Viewing this as "ambush
  journalism" -- my words -- McCarthy declined to participate in the impromptu
  debate.  No doubt the station was just trying to schedule a lively evening,
  but they should have checked with McCarthy and given him time to prepare.
  He and Dreyfus have sufficient visibility that a poorly stated remark, on
  >>any<< radio station, could affect the future of AI funding.  -- KIL]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Feb 86 08:46 EST
From: Ken Haase <KWH@MIT-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Technology Review article


    Date: 3 Feb 86 14:25:24 GMT
    From: vax135!miles@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Miles Murdocca)
    Subject: Re: Technology Review article
    To: AIList@SRI-AI

    The [Technology Review] article was written by the Dreyfuss brothers,
    who are famous for making bold statements that AI will never meet the
    expectations of the people who fund AI research.  They make the claim
    that people do not learn to ride a bike by being told how to do it,
    but by a trial and error method that isn't represented symbolically.
    They use this argument and a few others such as the lack of a
    representation for emotions to support their view that AI researchers
    are wasting their sponsors' money by knowingly heading down dead-ends.

I don't think the Dreyfus brothers accuse AI researches of knowingly
heading down dead-ends.  They just claim that most of ``what people do''
cannot be captured by the ``abstracted representations'' of nearly all
current AI research.  I don't agree with this claim, but can't deny that
we (in AI) may be all wrong about our central hypothesis.  We just have
to make our hypothesis clear and explicit.  I think that most high level
intellectual processes have effective symbolic representations (and I'm
working to find out what such representations might be).  That is an
explicit hypothesis of my research.  On the other hand, I do not think
that there is anything like a symbolic representation of ``how to ride a
bike''.  What happens in such cases is that our intellect ``trains'' the
animal that is the rest of us to ride the bicycle.

    As I recall ["Machine Learning", Michalski et al, Ch 1], there are two
    basic forms of learning: 'knowledge acquisition' and 'skill refinement'.
    The Dreyfuss duo seems to be using a skill refinement problem to refute
    the work going on in knowledge acquisition.  The distinction between the
    two types of learning was recognized by AI researchers years ago, and I
    feel that the Dreyfuss two lack credibility since they fail to align their
    arguments with the taxonomy of the field.

The alchemists could have made the same argument against arguments for
the periodic table; what the Dreyfus brothers are arguing for is the
need for just such a ``paradigm shift'' in cognitive science.  The fact
that this shift will disrupt the foundations of most current AI
technology (most of which is not well proven anyway) should not effect
scientific judgements at all (though, pessimistically, it certainly
will).

In any case, the dichotomy between skill refinement and knowledge
acquisition is even suspect; outside of rote learning of facts, most
gained knowledge is gained by appropriating the knowledge as skills (in
a broad sense of skills, which includes responses, perceptual skills,
etc).

Ken

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂10-Feb-86  0059	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #22
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Feb 86  00:58:54 PST
Date: Sun  9 Feb 1986 22:57-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #22
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Monday, 10 Feb 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 22

Today's Topics:
  Queries - AI Society Information &
    J. of AI, Cognitive Science and Applied Epistemology &
    Natural Language Interfacing & 3D-package for Xerox 1108 &
    Psychological Knowledge Structures &
    ICAI for Physically/Mentally Impaired,
  Symbolic Math - PDP-11 Equation Solvers,
  Logic Programming - Bibliography Correction & Quick Summary of NAIL,
  AI Tools - MIRANDA Functional Programming System

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 9 Feb 86 23:25:15 est
From: walker@mouton.ARPA (Don Walker at mouton.ARPA)
Subject: NEED INFORMATION ON AI SOCIETIES; PLEASE HELP

I am preparing a short article on associations, societies, and related
organizations in artificial intelligence.  For each, I would appreciate
receiving the following kind of information: name; purpose; date of
establishment; principal people involved in getting it started;
important events in its history; publications, conferences, and other
activities; current membership (if relevant); and any other items of
special interest.  I would like to put the set of organizations in some
historical perspective, if possible.  Pointers to other places where
something like this has already been done would be particularly
helpful, and copies of same would be even more so.  Needless to say, net
transmission is most efficient, as the deadline is uncomfortably
close.  And I would particularly value finding someone who would be
interested in helping put all this information together!

I would expect to include SIGART, ACL, ICCL, AISB, IJCAII, AAAI, CSS,
CSCSI, ECCAI, and as many other national and regional groups as
possible.  Please help if you can; share with me what you have
available, even if you think you may not be the most appropriate person
to do so; and help get this message out to the people who should know.

Net messages to walker@mouton.arpa, walker%mouton@csnet-relay,
or ucbvax(or ihnp4, etc.)!bellcore!walker; mail to
        Don Walker (EAI)
        Bell Communications Research
        445 South Street, MRE 2A379
        Morristown, NJ 07960, USA

I am sending this notice to publications as well as bboards, digests,
and people, but note that the time is too short to justify actually
printing it in most of them.  Instead, the editors should respond
themselves or route it to those most likely to have the information.

------------------------------

Date: Thu 6 Feb 86 13:23:43-PST
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: J. of AI, Cognitive Science and Applied Epistemology

         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


I received a message a while ago about the introduction of a new journal
titled Journal for the Integrated Study of Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive
Science and Applied Epistemology from Ghent, Belgium.  However I have not
been able to verify that such a journal has been published or is being
planned.  Does anyone have more information about it?

Harry Llull

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Feb 86 13:25 ???
From: Sonny Crockett <WELTYC%rpicie.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Natural Language Interfacing


        A couple of my students are interested in doing some work on
a natural language interface to an Operating System.  I'm not really well
versed in this particular field.  Can someone point me towards a few good
papers on this topic? They don't necessarily have to be specifically on
Natural language interfaces to OS, generic ones will do.

                                Thanks,

                                Christopher A. Welty
                                RPI/CIE Systems Manager

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 86 15:09:52 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!mcvax!diku!daimi!fleckner@ucbvax.berkeley
      .edu  (Kurt Fleckner)
Subject: 3D-package for Xerox 1108

I'm working on a Xerox 1108, and would like to get information
about a 3D-package for it.
I am designing an expert system to draw the 3D structure of
a RNA-molecule.
If anyone has any knowledge of such a system, I would be glad
if you could mail it to me. If you know about an expert system
in that area, I'm interested too.

                       Thanks,
                            Kurt Fleckner
                            Dept. of Comp. Science
                            University of Aarhus
                            Denmark
                       {seismo!mcvax!diku!daimi!fleckner}


[Check the last issue (or two) of IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications
for some beautiful graphics of DNA molecules in various conformations and
at several scales.  I was enlightened by the sequence showing DNA twisting
to form a chromosome.  Ken Knowleton and several others have also developed
molecular display software.  (I've seen examples in the SIGGRAPH proceedings.)
It would be a pity if all this had to be reinvented.  -- KIL]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 86 11:16 EST
From: THOMPSON%umass-cs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
Subject: Cognitive Psychology - Knowledge Structures

          I am  looking  for information about the knowledge structure
          differences of people who have different levels of expertise
          in  a  subject.  For  example, what is the difference in the
          knowledge  structure of an "apprentice", a "journeyman",or a
          "master".

          I will be happy to collect these references and repost them.
          Please send them directly to me (via csnet).

                                        Roger Thompson

                                        Thompson@UMASS

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 8 Feb 86 21:49:29 est
From: Walter Maner <maner%bgsu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: ICAI for Physically/mentally Impaired

Could anyone point me to recent research in the development of intelligent
tutoring/training systems for the physically/mentally impaired?  My interest
is on the software engineering side, not the hardware side.  What kinds of
unsolved problems exist which might be addressable by ICAI software methods?
My impression is that, while there is much activity on the hardware frontier
for impaired learners, there has been little innovative work on the software
side.  So much for my impressions :-).

Please reply by mail directly to me.  If there are enough responses, I
will post a response summary back to mod.ai.  Thank you.

        Walter Maner, Computer Science Department

BEST    CSNet           maner@bgsu
 :      ARPANet         maner%bgsu@csnet-relay
 :      UUCP            ...cbosgd!osu-eddie!bgsuvax!maner
 :      Mail            BGSU, Bowling Green, OH 43403
 :      CompuServe      73157,247
WORST   Phone           (419) 372-8719 or -2337

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1986 23:10 EST
From: Jonathan Cohn  <JC595C%GWUVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
Subject: PDP-11 Equation Solvers

I believe that such work was being done at Stevens Institute of Tech.
in Hoboken NJ in 1982-3 on a Pro-350 (PC version of PDP-11) at the math
department you might want to try in get in touch with Larry Levine
there, he is in the math department, and I think lead that project.
He has a computer address on bitnet of LLEVINE@SITVXB.

Jonathan Cohn
JC595C@GWUVM.BITNET
COHN@NSFVAX.BITNET
COHN@NSFVAX.CSNET

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 86 16:28:28 PST
From: newton@vlsi.caltech.edu (Mike Newton)
Subject: small correction


A small correction to last digest's bibliography:

        %A H. Derby
        %T Using Logic Programming for Compiling APL
        ...
        %C Los Angeles, California

to:

%A H. Derby
%T Using Logic Programming for Compiling APL
%R Technical Report 84-5134
%I Department of Computer Science
%I California Institute of Technology
%C Pasadena, California  91125
%D 1984

- mike

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 86 10:20:22 pst
From: Allen VanGelder <avg@diablo>
Subject: Quick summary of NAIL

         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

NAIL is a research project one of whose goals is to determine
what degree of expressiveness and efficiency can be obtained
by a logic based language without resorting to certain
"undesirable" non-logical mechanisms such as cut, assert and
retract, rule order, and subgoal order. Jeff Ullman, the PI,
likes to draw the analogy:

"NAIL is to Prolog as Relational DBMS is to CODASYL."

NAIL is in a preliminary stage of development at Stanford CSD.
An overview, "Design overview of the Nail! System" is available
from Professor Ullman.

NAIL! is an acronym for "Not Another Implementation of Logic!"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 86 23:39:35 GMT
From: dat%ukc.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: MIRANDA Functional Programming System


        MIRANDA


This  is  to  inform  anyone  who  may  be  interested   that   a   UNIX
implementation  of  the  Miranda  functional  programming  system is now
available for the following machines: VAX (under 4.2  BSD),  ORION,  and
SUN  workstations.  It will be ported to a number of other UNIX machines
in the  near  future.   The  rest  of  this  message  contains  a  brief
description  of the Miranda system, followed by information about how to
obtain it.

 What is Miranda?

Miranda is an advanced functional programming language designed by David
Turner  of the University of Kent.  It is based on the earlier languages
SASL, KRC and ML.  A program in Miranda is a set of equations describing
the  functions  and  data  structures  which the user wishes to compute.
Programs written in Miranda are typically ten to  twenty  times  shorter
than  the equivalent programs in a conventional high level language such
as PASCAL.  The main features of Miranda are:
        1) Purely functional - no side effects
        2) Higher order - functions can be treated as values
        3) Infinite data structures can be described and used
        4) Concise notation for sets and sequences ("zf expressions")
        5) Polymorphic strong typing
The basic  types  of  the  language  are  numbers  (integer  and  double
precision  floating  point),  characters,  booleans,  lists, tuples, and
functions.  In addition a rich variety  of  user-defined  types  may  be
introduced by writing appropriate equations.  A more detailed discussion
of the language may  be  found  in  "Miranda:  a  non-strict  functional
language  with polymorphic types", in Springer Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, vol 201.

The Miranda system is a self contained sub-system, running  under  UNIX.
The Miranda compiler works in conjunction with a screen editor (normally
this is `vi', but it is easy to arrange for this to be another editor if
preferred).  Programs are automatically recompiled in response to source
edits and any syntax or type errors  signalled  immediately.   The  type
system  enables  a  high proportion of semantic errors to be detected at
compile time.  There is an online reference manual, which documents  the
system at a level appropriate for someone already familiar with the main
ideas  of  functional  programming  (more  tutorial   material   is   in
preparation).  Execution is by a fast interpreter, using an intermediate
code based on combinatory logic.

The Miranda system is a powerful tool, enabling complex applications  to
be  developed  in  a  fraction  of  the  time required in a conventional
programming system.  Applications which have been developed  in  Miranda
include  -  compilers,  theorem provers, and digital circuit simulation.
It is envisaged that the main uses of Miranda will be:
        1) Teaching the concepts of functional programming
        2) Rapid prototyping
        3) As a specification language
        4) For further research into functional programming
        5) As a general purpose programming language

 Release Information

The Miranda system has been developed by Research Software Ltd.   It  is
distributed  in  object  code  form  and  is currently available for the
following machines - VAX (under 4.2BSD), ORION, SUN 2, SUN 3.

The license fee, per cpu, is 300 pounds for an educational  license  and
975   pounds   for   a  commercial  license  (US  prices:  $450,  $1450,
respectively).  If you think you may be interested in obtaining  a  copy
of  the Miranda system please send your name and (postal) address to the
following  electronic  mail  address,  and  you  will  be  sent  further
information and a copy of the license form etc:
                USENET:  ...!mcvax!ukc!mira-request
                JANET:   mira-request@ukc.ac.uk
                ARPANET: mira-request%ukc@ucl-cs
Or  telephone Research Software on: 0227 471844 (omit the initial `0' if
calling from outside England)

If you are interested in obtaining Miranda on a different machine, or  a
different  version  of  Unix,  from those listed above, it is also worth
mailing details of your situation, since future porting policy  will  be
largely  determined  by  perceived  demand.   ((NB  - UNIX systems only,
please.))


    David Turner

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂12-Feb-86  1615	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #23
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Feb 86  16:15:01 PST
Date: Wed 12 Feb 1986 09:31-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #23
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Wednesday, 12 Feb 1986     Volume 4 : Issue 23

Today's Topics:
  Seminars - Systems of Actors (USC) &
    Artificial Concept Formation (Edinburgh) &
    Parallelism in Production Systems (SU) &
    A Storage Manager for Prolog (SU) &
    Statistical Theory of Evidence (SRI),
  Conference - Compcon Spring 86

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 1986 08:21-EST
From: gasser@usc-cse.usc.edu
Subject: Seminar - Systems of Actors (USC)

            USC DISTRIBUTED PROBLEM SOLVING GROUP

                          MEETING


              "Formalizing the Development of

                    Systems of Actors"


                        Ed Ipser

                   Ph.D Student, USC

A formalization of the process of specifying and developing
distributed systems is presented, with the emphasis on the description
of multiple robot environments. The general scheme is a recursive
reduction of behaviors with constraints to actors with pre-determined
behaviors by showing that the behaviors of the actors satisfy the
behavior and constraint requirements of the system. Possible
applications of this scheme are presented, including automatic
programming, planning, theorem proving, and the description of
non-computable functions. This work is based on the work of Goldman
and Wile on GIST, and Georgeff's work on the theory of processes.

Time: 3:00 PM Wednesday, Feb 12, 1986
Place: Seaver Science Bldg., Room 319, USC
Questions: Dr. Les Gasser, CS Dept., USC (213) 743-7794

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Feb 86 14:56:48 GMT
From: Gideon Sahar <gideon%edai.edinburgh.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
Subject: Seminar - Artificial Concept Formation (Edinburgh)

EDINBURGH AI SEMINARS

Date:   Wednesday, 12th February l986
Time:   2.00 p.m.
Place:  Department of Artificial Intelligence
        Seminar Room - F10
        80 South Bridge
        EDINBURGH.


Professor Donald Michie, The Turing Institute, Glasgow will give a
seminar entitled - "Artificial Concept Formation".

The approach develops from a position taken in the 1950's by H.A. Simon.
He proposed, in essence, a new criterion for the adequacy of a theory
(he considered economic theory), namely that in explaining the flux of
transactions a theory must take full account of the resource-limited
nature of the calculations performed by the participating agents.   Is
economic man rational in the sense of making fully rational choices
whatever the computational cost (as in the von Neumann and Morgenstern
theory of economic behaviour), or does he exhibit at most the level of
rationality which human brains can feasibly compute in the time
available for each choice?   By implication Simon also requires that
such a theory should be feasibly interpretable by its human user:
runnability on the machine is not enough.

This leads to the idea that what is run on the machine should be
human-oriented in a very strong sense, unprecedented in conventional
software technology even as an aspiration:  if a program is to be not
just an operationally effective description or prescription, but a
machine representation of a concept and hence an eligible component of
a Simon-type theory, it must be not only human-intelligible but also
human-interpretable.   This entails that the human expert skilled in
the given area must be able mentally to check it against trial data in
his head, just as he can in the case of his own professionally acquired
concepts.

------------------------------

Date: Mon 10 Feb 86 09:28:13-PST
From: Sharon Gerlach <CSL.GERLACH@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - Parallelism in Production Systems (SU)


   On Friday, Feb 21, Anoop Gupta, a CSL faculty candidate from CMU, will
be speaking on "Parallelism in Production Systems" in MJH 352 at 3:15.



                       Parallelism in Production Systems

                                  Anoop Gupta
                        Department of Computer Science
                          Carnegie-Mellon University
                             Pittsburgh, PA 15213


  Production  systems  (or  rule-based  systems)  are widely used in Artificial
Intelligence for modeling intelligent behavior  and  building  expert  systems.
Most  production  system programs, however, are extremely computation intensive
and run quite slowly.  The slow speed of execution has prohibited  the  use  of
production   systems  in  domains  requiring  high  performance  and  real-time
response.  The talk will elaborate on the role of parallelism in the high-speed
execution of production systems.

  On  the  surface,  production  system  programs appear to be capable of using
large amounts of parallelism -- it  is  possible  to  perform  match  for  each
production  in  a  program  in  parallel.  Our research shows that in practice,
however, the speed-up obtainable from  parallelism  is  quite  limited,  around
10-fold as compared to initial expectations of 100-fold to 1000-fold.  The main
reasons for the limited speed-up are:  (1) there are only  a  small  number  of
productions that are affected (require significant processing) as a result of a
change to working memory and (2) there is a large variation in  the  processing
requirement  of these productions.  Since the number of affected productions is
not controlled by the implementor of the production system interpreter  (it  is
governed  mainly  by  the author of the program and the nature of the problem),
the solution to the problem of limited speed-up  is  to  somehow  decrease  the
variation  in  the  processing  cost  of  affected  productions.   We propose a
parallel version of the Rete algorithm which exploits  parallelism  at  a  very
fine  grain  to  reduce this variation.  We further suggest that to exploit the
fine-grained  parallelism,  a  shared-memory  multiprocessor  with  32-64  high
performance  processors  should be used.  For scheduling the fine-grained tasks
consisting of about 50-100 instructions, a hardware task scheduler is proposed.

  The results presented in the talk are based on simulations done for  a  large
set  of  production  systems  exploiting different sources of parallelism.  The
simulation results show that using the  suggested  multiprocessor  architecture
(with  individual  processors  performing  at 2 MIPS), it is possible to obtain
execution speeds of 5000-27000 working memory element changes per second.  This
corresponds  to  a speed-up of 5-fold to 27-fold over the best known sequential
implementation using a 2 MIPS processor.  This performance is also higher  than
that obtained by other proposed parallel implementations of production systems.

------------------------------

Date: Tue 11 Feb 86 16:30:05-PST
From: Karin Scholz <SCHOLZ@SU-SUSHI.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - A Storage Manager for Prolog (SU)


this is a correction to the colloquium notice for this week:

Database Seminar CS 545, Friday Feb 14, 3:15pm, mjh352


  Persistent Prolog: A Secondary Storage Manager for Prolog

           Peter M D Gray
           University of Aberdeen, Scotland


            ABSTRACT OF TALK

 The talk will describe a general purpose "tight coupling" system based on a
C-Prolog interpreter interfaced to a "Persistent Heap" database, which
can store a wide variety of data types and objects.  We are
currently extending Prolog to allow definitions of modules and Abstract
Data Types.  This provides a disciplined way of accessing frame structures,
bit maps, attached procedures and other non-Prolog objects.
  With this system we are able to use Prolog to maintain an evolving
knowledge base on disc.  Prolog clauses and data structures are
manipulated in memory in the usual way, but migrate to disc on a
"commit" step.
  This work is part of the U.K. "Alvey" program in IKBS

------------------------------

Date: Wed 12 Feb 86 08:55:19-PST
From: FIRSCHEIN@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: Seminar - Statistical Theory of Evidence (SRI)


Bob Hummel will be giving a talk on Tuesday, Feb. 18 at 10:30,
Conf room EK242 (the "old" conf room).  An abstract of his talk follows:


             A Statistical Viewpoint on the Theory of Evidence

                               Robert Hummel
                  Courant Institute, New York University

                                 Abstract

     The Dempster/Shafer "Theory of Evidence" can be regarded as  an  alge-
braic  space  with  a  combination  formula  that  combines the opinions of
"experts".  This viewpoint, which is really the origin of the theory,  will
be  explained  by  introducing spaces with simple binary operations, giving
these spaces intuitive interpretations, relating them to Bayesian updating,
and  showing that the spaces are (in a homomorphic sense) equivalent to the
Dempster/Shafer theory of evidence space.

     The viewpoint allows us to remark on limitations of  the  theory.   By
making compromises in a different manner, an alternative combination method
can be introduced.  This representation of states of belief by  "Parameter-
ized Statistics of Experts" will be described.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 86 07:40:54 pst
From: Doug Coffland <coffland@lll-crg.ARPA>
Subject: Conference - Compcon Spring 86


Register for Compcon Spring 86 now and attend the year's
only broad based computing conference sponsored by the
IEEE Computer Society.  Compcon will be held in San Fran-
cisco, March 3-6, 1986.

Key topics include: supercomputers, SDI software reliability,
AI applications, Japanese software practices, RISC vs. CISC,
and more.  Four full day tutorials will be given on Monday,
March 3.  Topics include silicon compilation, issues in expert
systems, complex computer graphics, and high performance com-
puting.

The advanced registration deadline is February 14.  For further
information, contact Robert M. Long, Lawrence Livermore National
Labratory, P. O. Box 808, MS L130, Livermore, Ca. 94550.
The telephone number is 415-422-8934.  Telephone registrations
will be accepted with Visa, MasterCard, or American Express.

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂12-Feb-86  2041	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #25
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Feb 86  20:41:01 PST
Date: Wed 12 Feb 1986 10:45-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #25
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Wednesday, 12 Feb 1986     Volume 4 : Issue 25

Today's Topics:
  Journals - New Journal on Applied AI & CACM Invitation to Authors,
  Conference - NCAI Exhibit Program,
  Theory - Technology Review Article & Taxonomizing in AI

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 25 Jan 86 14:21:41 est
From: FOXEA%VTVAX3.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: New Journal on Applied AI

                 [Forwarded from the IRList Digest.]

New Journal: Applied Artificial Intelligence, An International Journal
Publication Information: published quarterly starting March 86
Rates: $55/volume indiv ($88 institutional) plus $24 air mail postage
Contacts: order with check or money order to -
            Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, Journals Dept., 79 Madison Ave.
            New York, New York 10016
Information: Elizabeth D'Costa, Circulation Mgr. (212) 725-1999

Aims and Scope: Applied Artificial Intelligence is intended to help
exchange information about advances and experiences in this field among
AI researchers.  Furthermore, it will aid decision makers in industry and
management to understand the accomplishments and limitations of the
state-of-the-art of artificial intelligence.
   Research to be presented will focus on methodology, time-schedules,
problems, work force strength, new tools, transfer of theoretical
accomplishements to application problems, information exchange among
concerned AI researchers and decision makers about the potential impact
of their work on their decisions.

------------------------------

Date: Mon 10 Feb 86 22:49:05-PST
From: Peter Friedland <FRIEDLAND@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Invitation to Authors

        I have recently been named to the Editorial Panel of Communications
of the ACM (CACM) with responsibility for artificial intelligence.  CACM
is by far the widest-read computing publication with a current circulation
of over 75,000.  I would like to encourage submissions to CACM in one of
several forms:  articles of general interest (surveys, tutorials, reviews),
research contributions (original, previously-unpublished reports on
significant research), and reports on conferences or committee meetings.
In particular, manuscripts which act to bridge the gap between artificial
intelligence research and traditional computing methodologies are welcome.
All contributions will be fully reviewed with authors normally notified of
acceptance or rejection within 3 months of receipt.

        In addition, CACM intends to devote substantial amounts of space
to special collections of related, high-quality, "Scientific American-like"
articles.  For examples, see the September 1985 issue on "Architectures for
Knowledge-Based Systems" or the November 1985 issue on "Frontiers of
Computing in Science and Engineering."  These special sections are usually
composed of invited papers selected by a guest editor from the community.
Professional editors at ACM headquarters devote on the order of man-weeks
per article in developing graphics and helping to make the articles readable
by a wide cross-section of the computing community.  I welcome suggestions
(and volunteers) from anybody in the AI community for such special sections.

        Articles and research contributions should be submitted directly
to:             Janet Benton
                Executive Editor, CACM
                11 West 42nd St.
                New York, NY 10036

        Ideas for articles or special sections, and volunteers for helping
in the review process to insure the highest quality of AI publication
in CACM should be sent to me as FRIEDLAND@SUMEX (or call 415-497-3728).

Peter Friedland

------------------------------

Date: Mon 10 Feb 86 11:39:47-PST
From: AAAI <AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Special Invitation


The AAAI would like to extend a special invitation to academic
institutions and non-profit research laboratories to participate
in this year's Exhibit Program at the National Conference on
Artificial Intelligence, August 11-15, 1986 in the Philadelphia
Civic Center.  It's important to communicate what universities and
labortories are doing in AI by demonstrating their different
research projects to our conference attendees.

The AAAI will provide one 10' x 10' booth free of charge, describe
your demonstration in the Exhibit Guide, and assist you with your
logistical arrangements.  Although we can not provide support
equipment (e.g. phone, lines or computers), we can direct you to
different vendors who may be able to assist you with your equipment
needs.

If you and your department are interesting in participating, please
call Ms. Lorraine Cooper at the AAAI (415) 328-3123.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 86 19:46:53 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!utai!lamy@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
      (Jean-Francois Lamy)
Subject: Re: Technology Review article

In article <7500002@ada-uts.UUCP> richw@ada-uts.UUCP writes:
>like: "In 25 years, AI has still not lived up to its promises and
>there's no reason to think it ever will"

Still thinking that fundamental breakthroughs in AI are achievable in such an
infinitesimal amount of time as 25 years is naive.  I probably was not even
born when such claims could have been justified by sheer enthousiasm... Not
that we cannot get interesting and perhaps even useful developments in the
next 25 years.

>P.S.  You might notice that about 10 pages into the issue, there's
>      an ad for some AI system.  I bet the advertisers were real
>      pleased about the issue's contents...

Nowadays you don't ask for a grant or try to sell a product if the words "AI,
expert systems, knowledge engineering techniques, fifth generation and natural
language processing" are not included.
Advertisement is about creating hype, and it really works -- for a while,
until the next "in" thing comes around.

Jean-Francois Lamy
Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto,
Departement d'informatique et de recherche operationnelle, U. de Montreal.
CSNet:      lamy@toronto.csnet
UUCP:       {utzoo,ihnp4,decwrl,uw-beaver}!utcsri!utai!lamy
CDN:        lamy@iro.udem.cdn (lamy%iro.udem.cdn@ubc.csnet)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 86 20:51:58 PST
From: larry@Jpl-VLSI.ARPA
Subject: Sparklers from the Tech Review

I haven't read the Tech Review article; perhaps I shall just to see how
different will be my interpretation of it from the opinions heard here.  The
discussion has made me want to offer some ideas of my own.

What we lump under AI is several different fields of research with often very
different if not contradictory approaches.  As a dilletante in the AI field I
perceive the following:

COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY (a more restricted area than Cognitive Science) attempts
to understand biologically based thinking using behavioral and psychiatric
concepts and methods.  This includes the effects emotional and social forces
exert on cognition.  This group is increasingly borrowing from the following
groups.

COGNITIVE SCIENCE attempts to broaden the study to include machine-based
cognition.  CS introduces heavy doses of metaphysics, logic, linguistics, and
information theory.  My impression is that this area is too heavily invested
in symbol-processing research and could profitably spend more time on analog
computation and associative memories.  These may better model humans' near-
instantaneous decision-making, which is more like doing a vector-sum than
doing massively parallel logical inferences.

PATTERN RECOGNITION, ROBOTICS, ETC.  attempts to engineer cognition into
machines.  Many workers in this field have a strong "hard-science" background
and a pragmatic approach; they often don't care whether they reproduce or
whether they mimic biological cognition.

EXPERT SYSTEMS, KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING is more software engineering than
hardware engineering.  Logic, computer science, and database theory are strong
here.  Some of the simpler expert systems are imminently practical and have
been around for decades--though "programmed" into trouble-shooting books and
the like rather than a computer.  (And while we're on this, most of what now
passes for rule-based programming could be done in BASIC or assembly language,
including self-modifying code, using fairly simple table-driven techniques.)

And perhaps several more groups could be distinguished.  Of course, there are
plenty of exceptions to these categories, but humans do self-select into
groups and distill ideas and techniques into a rudimentary group persona.

If I were to characterize myself, I'd probably say that I'm less interested in
AI than IA--Intelligence Amplification.  I'm interested by attempts to create
machine versions of human intelligence and I have little doubt that all the
vaunted "mystical" abilities of humans will eventually be reproduced,
including self-awareness.

Some of these abilities may be much easier to reproduce than we suppose:
intuition, for instance.  I'm an artist in several media and use intuition
routinely.  I've spent a lot of time introspecting about what happens when I
"solve" artistic problems, and I've learned how to "program" my undermind so
that I can promise solutions with considerable reliability.  I believe I could
build an intuitive computer.

But what fascinates me is the idea of building systems which combine the best
capabilities  of human and machine to overcome the limits of both.  I think
it's much more economical, practical, and probably even humane to, say, make a
language-translation system that uses computers to do rapid, rough transla-
tions of 99% of a text and uses human sensitivities and skills to polish and
validate the translations.  (Stated like that it sounds like two batch jobs
with a pipe between them.  My concept is an interactive system with both human
and computer collaborating on the job, with the human doing continuous shaping
and scheduling of the entire process.)

Now I'll go back to being an interested by-stander for another six months!

                 Larry @ JPL-VLSI.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 86 18:04:58 GMT
From: amdcad!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!lab@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Lab Manager)
Subject: Re: Technology Review article

In article <7500002@ada-uts.UUCP> richw@ada-uts.UUCP writes:
>
>Has anyone read the article about AI in the February issue of
>"Technology Review"?  You can't miss it -- the cover says something
>like: "In 25 years, AI has still not lived up to its promises and
>there's no reason to think it ever will" (not a direct quote; I don't
>have the copy with me).  General comments?

They basically say that things like blocks world doesn't scale up, and
AI can't model intuition because 'real people' aren't thinking
machines. An appropriate rebuttal to these two self-styled
philosophers:

"In 3000 years, Philosophy has still not lived up to its promises and
there's no reason to think it ever will."


Brad Miller     Arpa:   lab@rochester.arpa UUCP: rochester!lab
                        (also miller@rochester for non-lab stuff)
                Title:  CS Lab Manager
                Snail:  University of Rochester Computer Science Dept.
                        617 Hylan Building Rochester NY 14627

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 9 Feb 86 16:38:38 est
From: "Marek W. Lugowski" <marek%indiana.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Taxonomizing in AI: neither useful or harmless

> [Stan Shebs:] In article <3600036@iuvax.UUCP> marek@iuvax.UUCP writes:
>
>   Date: 4 Feb 86 19:55:00 GMT
>   From: ihnp4!inuxc!iubugs!iuvax!marek@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
>
>   ha ha ha!  "taxonomy of the field" -- the latest gospel of AI?  Let me be
>   impudent enough to claim one of the most misguided AI efforts to date is
>   taxonomizing a la Michalski et al:  setting up categories along arbitrary
>   lines dictated by somebody or other's intuition.  If AI does not have
>   the mechanism-cum-explanation to describe a phenomenon, what right does it
>   have to a) taxonomize it and b) demand that its taxonomizing be recognized
>   as an achievement?
>                        -- Marek Lugowski
>
> I assume you have something wonderful that we haven't heard about?

I assume that you are intentionally jesting, equating that which I criticize
with all that AI has to offer.  Taxonomizing is a debatable art of empirical
science, usually justified when a scientist finds itself overwhelmed with
gobs and gobs of identifiable specimens, e.g. entymology.  But AI is not
overwhelmed by gobs and gobs of tangible singulars; it is a constructive
endeavor that puts up putatative mechanisms to be replaced by others.  The
kinds of learning Michalski so effortlessly plucks out of the thin air are not
as incontrovertibly real and graspable as instances of dead bugs.

One could argue, I suppose, that taxonomizing in absence of multitudes of
real specimens is a harmless way of pursuing tenure, but I argue in
Indiana U. Computer Science Technical Report No. 176, "Why Artificial
Intelligence is Necessarily Ad Hoc: Your Thinking/Approach/Model/Solution
Rides on Your Metaphors", that it causes grave harm to the field.  E-mail
nlg@iuvax.uucp for a copy, or write to Nancy Garrett at Computer Science
Department, Lindley Hall 101, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana
47406.

> Or do you believe that because there are unsolved problems in physics,
> chemists and biologists have no right to study objects whose behavior is
> ultimately described in terms of physics?
>
>                                                       stan shebs
>                                                       (shebs@utah-orion)

TR #176 also happens to touch on the issue of how ill-formed Stan Shebs's
rhetorical question is and how this sort of analogizing has gotten AI into
its current (sad) shape.

Please consider whether taxonomizing kinds of learning from the AI perspective
in 1981 is at all analogous to chemists' and biologists' "right to study the
objects whose behavior is ultimately described in terms of physics."  If so,
when is the last time you saw a biology/chemistry text titled "Cellular
Resonance" in which 3 authors offered an exhaustive table of carcinogenic
vibrations, offered as a collection of current papers in oncology?...

More constructively, I am in the process of developing an abstract machine.
I think that developing abstract machines is more in the line of my work as
an AI worker than postulating arbitrary taxonomies where there's neither need
for them nor raw material.

                                -- Marek Lugowski
                                   an AI graduate student
                                   Indiana U. CS

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂12-Feb-86  2316	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #24
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Feb 86  23:16:08 PST
Date: Wed 12 Feb 1986 09:47-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #24
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Wednesday, 12 Feb 1986     Volume 4 : Issue 24

Today's Topics:
  Queries - Literature Search & Distributed Databases,
  AI Tools - LISP Source Code,
  Applications - ISIS,
  Journals - Belgian AI/CogSci/Epistemology Journal,
  Re: Cognitive Psychology - Knowledge Structures
  Humor - Animated Computer Personalities & Paranoid Computers & Koans

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Feb 86 14:52:34 CST
From: veach%ukans.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
Subject: Literature search.

I am beginning a research project on the control of multiple expert
systems in a single package/environment.  If anyone has any bibliographies
and/or references to literature on the control/scheduling/implementation
of multiple expert systems and would kindly share it with me I would
appreciate it.  Thanks

Glenn O. Veach
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
Department of Computer Science
University of Kansas
Lawrence, KS  66044
(913) 864-4482

------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 86 15:13:34 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!drutx!druky!krahl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
      (R.H. Krahl)
Subject: Distributed Databases

Anyone having any articles or information in regards to distributed databases
with expert systems would be very much appreciated.  Thanks-in-advance.

Rich Krahl @ AT&T-ISL, Denver   EMAIL: {allegra, cbosgd, ihnp4}!druky!krahl
11900 N. Pecos
Denver, CO. 80234.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 8 Feb 86 14:07:34 pst
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!oblio!paf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Paul Fronberg)
Subject: Re: request for LISP source code

Try Scheme from the GNU emacs distribution. This is the version of LISP
utilized in "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs". The
source is ~ $150 and includes GNU emacs + Scheme + Bison (as of 7/85).
There was no problem in getting Scheme to build on either BSD 4.2 or USG V.2
(slight modification of build files necessary in the last case).

------------------------------

Date: Mon 10 Feb 86 15:52:39-CST
From: CMP.BARC@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
Subject: Re: ISIS

ISIS is a factory scheduling KBS developed by Mark Fox and Stephen Smith
at the Intelligent Systems Laboratory of the Robotics Institute at CMU,
in conjunction with Westinghouse.  It constructs job-shop schedules,
monitors performance and avoids production bottlenecks, by evaluating and
resolving conflicting factors such as productivity goals, resource
requirements and machine preferences.

References:

Fox and Smith, "ISIS -- a KBS for factory scheduling", Expert Systems, v. 1,
n. 1, July 1984, pp. 25-49.

Fox, Smith, et al, "ISIS: A Constraint-Directed Reasoning Approach to Job
Shop Scheduling", Proc IEEE Conf. on Trends and Applications 83, Gaithers-
berg, MD, May 1983.


Dallas Webster
Burroughs Austin Research Center
CMP.BARC@R20.UTexas.Edu
{ihnp4, seismo, ctvax}!ut-sally!batman!dallas

------------------------------

Date: 10 FEB 86 17:04-N
From: KEMPEN%HNYKUN52.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: Info on Belgian AI journal (AIList)

The journal is called:
Title: CC-AI
Subtitle: The journal for the integrated study of Artificial
          Intelligence, Cognitive Science and Applied Epistemology.
Editorial Address:
CC-AI
Blandijnberg 2
B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
tel. +32 (91) 257571, ext. 4522
TELEX RUGENT 12.754
Publisher:
Communication & Cognition
(Same address)

                                 Gerard Kempen

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Feb 86 18:23:59 pst
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!ucla-cs!koen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Koenraad Lecot)
Subject: Re: J. of AI, Cognitive Science and Applied Epistemology

The journal had a couple of issues last year. Papers cover a wide variety
of topics within AI. Not too technical stuff. Have not received any issues
this year yet.

 -- Koenraad Lecot

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 11 Feb 86 09:36:10 cst
From: bulko@SALLY.UTEXAS.EDU (Bill Bulko)
Reply-to: bulko@sally.UUCP (Bill Bulko)
Subject: Re: Cognitive Psychology - Knowledge Structures

     My attempted mail reply to thompson@umass-cs.csnet failed, so I'm
posting this instead.  The request was for pointers to articles dealing
with how varying levels of expertise could be represented.  My research
is related to problem solving in physics, and so I have read several papers
dealing with the way people learn how to solve problems in technical fields.
Below is an excerpt from my proposal containing the related (annotated)
references;  I hope that they prove helpful.



Bhaskar, R., and H. A. Simon,  "Problem Solving in Semantically Rich
   Domains:  An Example from Engineering Thermodynamics."  Cognitive Science,
   Vol. 1, No. 2, April 1977.
This is a study of the processes used by people to solve problems in
semantically rich domains, and how these processes compare with those in
general problem-solving domains.  The authors choose the field of
thermodynamics, and use a protocol-encoding program called SAPA, which they
theorize corresponds to their subject's problem-solving behavior.

Chi, M. T. H., P. Feltovich, and R. Glaser, "Categorization and
   Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices."  Cognitive
   Science, Vol. 5, No. 2, April-June 1981.
The authors compare the ways experts and novices categorize physics problems
and form physical models of the problems based on the categories created.
Studies are presented which investigate the implications of the differences
found for problem solving in general.

Larkin, J., J. McDermott, D. Simon, and H. A. Simon, "Models of Competence in
   Solving Physics Problems."  Cognitive Science, Vol. 4, No. 4, October-
   December 1980.
This article discusses how a person's experience and expertise in solving
physics problems determine the process by which he solves them.  The authors
describe a set of two computer programs which they claim are accurate models
of "expert" and "novice" problem-solving protocols.

Larkin, J., and H. A. Simon, "Learning Through Growth of Skill in
   Mental Modeling."  Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of
   the Cognitive Science Society, p. 106.
The authors study how people develop the ability to take physical situations
and re-represent them in terms of scientific entities.  They present a program
called ABLE, which models the performance of human experts and novices as they
solve physics problems, from this learning point of view.

Luger, G., "Mathematical Model Building in the Solution of Mechanics
   Problems:  Human Protocols and the MECHO Trace."  Cognitive Science,
   Vol. 5, No. 1, January-March 1981.
Luger describes an automatic problem solver, MECHO, and describes how it
can be used for model building and manipulation in solving problems in
physics.  He compares traces of MECHO with the problem-solving protocols of
several human subjects, and hypothesizes that these traces are similar to the
model-building techniques that people in general use.

                                        Hope these help,
                                        Bill

          "In the knowledge lies the power." -- Edward A. Feigenbaum
                       "Knowledge is good." -- Emil Faber
Bill Bulko                                      Department of Computer Sciences
The University of Texas         {ihnp4,harvard,gatech,ctvax,seismo}!sally!bulko

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jan 86 16:33:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!pollack@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Two AI software packages

RE: Mom
There was an article by Thomas Friedman in the NYT a couple
of months ago on two programs for the Atari ST written
by "the Israeli equivalent of Garry Trudeau":
"MOM" and "MURRAY" are animated computer personalities,
They sit in comfortable chairs on the screen and talk to you.
Murray is a raconteur, with supposedly an ever-expanding database
of humor, and a memory for the jokes he already told you, and MOM
is a typical mother figure, who can make you feel guilty for
anything, even spending the $49 to buy her. Their dialog appears in
white bubbles above their heads, and the user gets
to type in their name and answer yes/no questions.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 86 14:16:32 GMT
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: noaK

Re: 2010 and H-Mobius Loops and HAL's paranoia (Vol 4 # 17).

Why not give HAL (an intelligent system) the Rorschach inkblot test,
"to show intelligence, personality and mental state"?
Another psychological test, the IQ test, was proposed by in volume 3,
number 164.

Gordon Joly
aka
The Joka
ARPA: gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
UUCP: {...!seismo!mcvax}!ukc!kcl-cs!qmc-ori!gcj

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Feb 86 14:08:31 EST
From: decwrl!decvax!sunybcs!colonel@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Col. G. L. Sicherman)
Subject: Re: ai koans

        A P.I. who was trying to meet a deadline said to his
        assistant: "Excuse me, I couldn't help noticing that
        you're not working!"

        "The computer isn't working," the assistant replied.

        PASK, overhearing them, commented: "Not the assistant,
        not the computer.  The man-machine interface isn't
        working."

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂14-Feb-86  0024	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #26
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Feb 86  00:24:04 PST
Date: Thu 13 Feb 1986 21:48-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #26
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Friday, 14 Feb 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 26

Today's Topics:
  Queries - Automatic Testing of Parsers & Baseball Expert Systems,
  Literature - AI in Engineering & Business Week on Expert Systems,
  AI Tools - LISP Compilers,
  Education - ICAI for the Physically/Mentally Impaired,
  Games - Artificial Animals & Software Robots

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 86 10:52:00 EST
From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
Reply-to: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
Subject: automatic testing of parsers


Do any systems exist which can accept a body of BNF (or some other
syntactic production rules), and then generate or enumerate test
cases to be run against an alleged parser of that BNF?

Thanks in advance for any help...

John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>
National Bureau of Standards

------------------------------

Date: 8 Feb 86 00:31:08 GMT
From: sdcsvax!noscvax!priebe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Carey E. Priebe)
Subject: baseball expert systems

****************************************************************
i need pointers to or information about expert systems that have
been developed for the baseball domain.  i would be interested
in research or incomplete programs as well as mature systems.  i
believe there was some related work ongoing at yale recently, per-
haps focusing on natural language, but my information is sketchy.
reply directly to me or through the net.
thanx in advance.
                                cp
*****************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: AI in Engineering

As a news editor for "Artificial Intelligence in Engineering", I
request that people send me information on new applications of
artificial intelligence to engineering problems, whether they be
products, research efforts, industrial applications or related items
such as conferences or new bindings.

Please send the information to me at:
  Laurence L. Leff
  Computer Science and Engineering
  Southern Methodist University
  Dallas, Texas 75275

bitnet: E1AR0002 at SMUVM1
Arpanet, CSNET leff%smu@csnet-relay
UUCPnet ihnp4!convex!smu!leff

------------------------------

Date: Thu 13 Feb 86 10:58:34-PST
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Business Week on Expert Systems

Check the February 10 issue of Business Week, pp. 94, 98-99, for a
discussion of the funding and prospects of Intellicorp, Teknowledge,
Inference Corp., and the Carnegie Group.  They are described as the
Gang of Four in AI.

                                        -- Ken Laws

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Feb 86 09:00:25 est
From: sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittatc!decvax!linus!raybed2!gxm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
      (GERARD MAYER)
Subject: Re: LISP Compilers?

Get in touch with Franz Inc., 2920 Domingo Ave, Suite 203, Berkeley, CA 94705
(415) 540-1224 for common lisp product running on unix.

                                                Gerard Mayer
                                                Raytheon Research Division

                                                uucp   ..linus!raybed2!gxm

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Feb 86 17:59:06 mst
From: ulysses!ihnp4!alberta!arms@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bill Armstrong)
Subject: Re: ICAI for Physically/mentally Impaired

There is a softcover book: Microcomputer Resource Book for Special
Education by Dolores Hagen published by Reston in 1984.  It deals
with questions of the learning impaired, deaf, blind, and physically
handicapped, but points out that a lot of software is useful
to the handicapped even if it isn't so labelled.
The ISBN numbers are 0-8359-4345-3 and 0-8359-4344-5 (paperback)
Call number LC4019.H33 1984.

I don't know whether it satisfies the ICAI criterion or is just
CAI.  The person to talk to about ICAI would be
Greg Kearsley, Courseware, Inc.,
10075 Carroll Canyon Road, San Diego, California 92131.

I hope this helps you.

------------------------------

Date: Thu 23 Jan 86 10:44:55-PST
From: Mark Richer <RICHER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Artificial Animals

               [Excerpted from the AI-Ed distribution.]


Computer Currents, 22-oct-85  [a computer newspaper]
        Strehlo: What's the nature of the research?

        Kay: It's yet another attempt to try and understand the thin
edge of the long wedge. At PARC, the children used Smalltalk on the
interim Dynabook to build their own application programs, their own
editors and animation and stuff like that.  In this case, we're sort
of upping the ante to try and do a system in which the children can
create little mentalities, animal level mentalities that can be put
into a simulated environment where they have to survive. If you will,
it's like creating a little Disney character that you then put out
into a big world."

Strehlo: We see this kind of thing on a simple level in adventure
games where the player has to give characters the traits needed to
achieve some goal.

Kay: Right, exactly.

Strehlo: And this just goes further? How would it go further?

Kay: "It goes a lot further.  We're shooting for something that will
be dynamically animated and will actually learn things.  The idea is
to get kids to be more thoughtful about thinking by getting them to
try to think about how animals think, and by taking the results of
these comtemplations and actually building animal-like creatures that
work. It's exciting. There's very little in existing AI or computer
graphics that really serves this project, which is nice. We get to
invent it."  [AI-ED editor:  If you are familiar with Doug Lenat's
work, you might not be surprised to learn that Doug and Alan are
friends.  When Alan was at Atari, Doug consulted on the KNOESPHERE
project along with ALan Borning, David McDonald, Craig Taylor &
Stephen Weyer ... in alphabetical order.  See IJCAI proceedings #8,
p.167-169 if you are interested .. it's a bit vague and far out though]

Strehlo: Who do you have working with you on this project?

Kay: I've got Marvin Minsky helping on the AI stuff, I've got Seymour
Papert helping on some of the curriculum design, I've got the visual
language lab at MIT helping on the graphics for the animals and stuff.
All different kinds of disciplines, different kinds of students, are
working on it. If we can anchor the place over the next couple of
years, and there's every reason to believe it's going to happen,
Project Vivarium is going to be the most exciting place in the world
to work.

[...]

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 86 13:32:05 GMT
From: decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!phri!greenber@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ross
      Greenberg)
Subject: A contest in 'C'...

There is a game making the rounds on some of the MS-DOS BBS's called
CROBOTS.  An interesting game that can allow those that respond to
determine just how good their 'C' programming is.
In this game, you program your "robot" to seek out and destroy other
robots that have been programmed by someone else.  Each robot has the
capability of movement, sensor detection of other robots, and the
ability to fire a cannon at a given direction and range.
Typical robots might use programs that allow the robot to scan the
playfield, locate any one of four opponents, fire a cannon at that
opponent, and start zig-zagging towards that opponent while firing
a cannon.
If you are interested in determining how *your* robot stands up
to other robots, then here are the contest rules:
1)      Get a copy of the program from a local MS-DOS machine.
        There may be a UNIX version out, but I'm not aware of
        it
2)      Create a robot that will (2 out of 3 times), destroy
        the preconfigured robots that come in the .ARC package.
3)      Document your robot's code and send it off to me at the
        below address.  Entries accepted until March 1, 1986.
4)      You may enter no more than two robots.
The way I'll run the contest should work, although comments are
welcomed:
For every four robots that come in, I'll send them off to battle.
I'll run the simulation twice for each four, or until a have a
clear consensus of which two out of the robots make it to the next
round.
This process will be repeated until there are finally only four
top robots.  They'll slug it out until I can determine which are
the top two.  From that, of course, I can determine which is the
robot that deserves the applause.
The top four robots will be posted to the net.  Each losing robot
will be returned to its designer, along with the code for the
robots which destroyed it.
Consider this first contest the beginning round.  The next round
will be in about three months.

And I forgot to tell you where some of these boards are....
Two that I know of are:
NYACC (New York Amateur Computer Club) at 1-718-539-3338
and my board at 1-212-889-6438, login with 'demo' and 'demo'.
Happy Robot Designing....

Good Luck!
Ross

ross m. greenberg
ihnp4!allegra!phri!sysdes!greenber
[phri rarely makes a guest-account user a spokesperson. Especially not me.]

------------------------------

Date: 8 Feb 86 15:54:14 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!npois!npoiv!bad@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
      (Bruce Dautrich)
Subject: Re: A contest in 'C'...

        This games sounds like a game called bolo which to my knowledge
was first written by Peter Langston who also wrote empire.

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂14-Feb-86  0240	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #27
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Feb 86  02:40:18 PST
Date: Thu 13 Feb 1986 22:15-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #27
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Friday, 14 Feb 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 27

Today's Topics:
  Query - OPS5 Demo,
  Cognitive Psychology - Knowledge Structures,
  Games & Logic - Prisoners' Dilemma Computer Programs Tournament

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 86 22:19:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!ctvax!kerry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: OPS5 Demo Needed

Does anyone know where I can get a good production system demo that will
run on the FRANZ LISP version of OPS5 (VPS)?

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Feb 86 00:56:33 EST
From: Mark Weiser <mark@mimsy.umd.edu>
Reply-to: mark@maryland.UUCP (Mark Weiser)
Subject: Re: Cognitive Psychology - Knowledge Structures

In article <8602111536.AA15674@sally.UTEXAS.EDU>
sally!bulko (Bill Bulko) writes:

> Chi, M. T. H., P. Feltovich, and R. Glaser, "Categorization and
>    Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices."  Cognitive
>    Science, Vol. 5, No. 2, April-June 1981.
> The authors compare the ways experts and novices categorize physics problems
> and form physical models of the problems based on the categories created.
> Studies are presented which investigate the implications of the differences
> found for problem solving in general.


A related paper is :
Mark Weiser and Joan Shertz. "Programming problem representation
        in novice and expert programmers." International Journal of
        Man-Machine Studies.  December 1983. pp. 391-398.
This paper is an application of some of the Chi, Feltovich, and Glaser
methodology to the problem space of programming, with generically
similar results.  Differences in detail include categories of
problem-solving used and not used by experts (algorithms yes,
data-structures no), and differences between expert programmers
and expert former programmers now programming managers.

-mark
Spoken: Mark Weiser     ARPA:   mark@maryland   Phone: +1-301-454-7817
CSNet:  mark@umcp-cs    UUCP:   {seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!mark
USPS: Computer Science Dept., University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 86 10:08:45 PST
From: MEGIDDO@IBM-SJ.ARPA
Subject: Prisoners' Dilemma Computer Programs Tournament


                       First Announcement of a

                     COMPUTER PROGRAMS TOURNAMENT
                   (of the Prisoners' Dilemma game)

1. INTRODUCTION

  This is a first announcement of a tournament for computer programs,
playing the famous Prisoners' Dilemma game.  Detailed instructions and
some background information are provided below.  The tournament is
organized for the purpose of research and no prizes are offered.  It
is intended however that the results and winners' names will be
published with permission from the persons involved.  One of the goals
is to see what will happen during a SEQUENCE of tournaments in which
information about the participating programs will be released, so that
participants will be able to revise their programs.  The tournament is
open to everyone.  However, notice the warnings below.  If you have
access to electronic mail then you can participate by submitting a
FORTRAN program according to the instructions below.  By doing so you
will also release and waive all your copyright rights and any other
intellectual property rights to your program.  It will also be assumed
that you have not violated any rights of any third party.  This
announcement also includes some programs that will help you prepare
for the tournament.

2. BACKGROUND

  The so-called prisoners' dilemma game has drawn the attention
of researchers from many fields: psychology, economics, political
science, philosophy, biology, and mathematics.  Computer scientists
are also interested in this game in the context of fundamentals of
distributed systems.

  The game is simple to describe, does not require much skill and is yet
extremely interesting from both the theoretical and practical points
of view.  By the (one-shot) Prisoners' Dilemma game we refer to a game
as follows.  The game is played by two players with symmetric roles.
Each has to choose (independently of the other) between playing action
C ("cooperate") or action D ("defect").  The scores to the two
players, corresponding to the four possible combinations of choices of
actions, are as shown in the following table:

                          Player 2

                         C       D
                      ---------------
                     |     3 |     4 |
                  C  |       |       |
                     | 3     | 0     |
       Player 1      |-------|-------|
                     |     0 |     1 |
                  D  |       |       |
                     | 4     | 1     |
                      ---------------

Thus, both players score 3 if both play C.  Both score 1 if both play D.
If one plays C and the other one plays D then the one who plays C scores
0 while the other one scores 4.

  The prisoner's dilemma game has been the subject of many experiments.
A tournament was organized several years ago by R.  Axelrod who later
published a book on it under the title "The evolution of cooperation"
(Basic Books, Inc., New York, 1984).

  Following is some discussion for the benefit of readers who are not
familiar with the fundamental considerations of how to play the game. One
should be careful to distinguish the one-shot game from the REPEATED game
in which the (one-shot) game is played many times, and after each round
both players are informed of each other's actions.  Furthermore, one
should distinguish between the infinitely repeated game and the finitely
repeated one.  These seem to be quite different from the point of view
of equilibrium.  An equilibrium in a 2-person game is a pair (S1,S2) of
strategies (one for each player) such that, given that player  i  (i=1,2)
is playing  Si , the other player, j=3-i, scores the maximum if he plays
Sj .

  We are interested here in the finitely repeated game where the number
of rounds is known in advance.  We first consider the one-shot game.
The analysis of the one-shot game is obvious.  Each of the players
realizes that no matter what his opponent does, it is always better
for him to play D rather than C.  Thus, under a very weak assumption
of rationality (namely, players do not choose actions that are
strictly dominated by other actions), the pair of actions (D,D)
remains the only rational choice.  The resulting score of (1,1) is
inferior to (3,3), which is possible if the choices are (C,C), and
this is the source of the "dilemma".

  To get some insight into the more general case, consider first
the 2-round game.  After the first round (in which the players choose
independently C or D) each player is informed of the choice of the
other one and then, once again, the players choose independently C or
D.  In this game each player has EIGHT strategies that can be coded in
the form XYZ where each of X,Y and Z equals either C or D.  The
interpretation of this notation is as follows.  (1) Play X in round 1.
(2) In round 2, play Y if the opponent played C and play Z if the
opponent played D.  It is easy to verify that any strategy XYZ is
strictly dominated by XDD (that is, regardless of what was done in
round 1, and regardless of what the opponent does in round 2, it is
better to play D rather than C in round 2.  However, there is no
domination relation between the strategies CDD and DDD: if player 2
plays DDD then player 1 is better off playing DDD rather than CDD,
whereas if player 2 plays DDC, player 1 is better off playing CDD
rather than DDD.  Of course, strategy DDC for player 2 is dominated by
DDD, but in order for player 1 to deduce that player 2 will not play
DDC, he has to assume that player 2 is capable of discovering this
domination.  Under such an assumption player 1 can eliminate 2's DDC.
Thus, if both players are "rational" they are left only with strategy
DDD as a reasonable choice.

  A similar process of repeatedly eliminating dominated strategies
applies to the general N-round game.  It is dominant for both players
to defect in the last round.  Therefore (after we drop all strategies
that play C in the last round), it becomes dominant to defect in round
N-1, and so on.  This eventually leaves both players only with the
strategy of always playing D.

  The winner in both tournaments run by R. Axelrod was the simple
strategy called "Tit-for-Tat".  It starts by playing C and in round i+1
plays whatever the opponent played in round i.  It seems like a very good
strategy for playing the repeated dilemma for an indefinite number of
rounds.  In the N-round game it is obvious that an improvement over Tit-
for-Tat would be to play Tit-for-Tat except for the last round in which
the optimal play is always to defect.

3. HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TOURNAMENT?

  If you think you understand the dilemma quite well and would like to
participate in this tournament then please act according to the following
instructions:
1.  Design a strategy of how to play the game when the number of rounds
is known in advance.  The strategy should specify what to do in round 1
and at any point of the game, knowing what has been done so far and the
number of rounds left, specify what to do in the next round.
2.  Write a FORTRAN subroutine with the following specifications.  Give
it a six-letter name, for example, the first four letters of your last
name followed by two initials.  Suppose you picked the name JONERJ for
your subroutine.  Then the first line of your program should look as
follows.

      SUBROUTINE JONERJ (N,J,I,M)

  The arguments are defined as follows.

N - This is the total number of rounds to be played.  Whenever your
    program is called it is told the total number of rounds and
    this will not change during a single game.
J - This is the serial number of the round you are supposed to play in
    the current call.
I - When J is greater than 1, this argument tells you what your opponent
    has played in the previous round.  If I=1 it means your opponent has
    played C.  If J=2 then he played D.  Any other value is an error.
M - This is what you return as your play in the current round.  M=1 means
    you play C.  M=2 means you play D.  Any other value will result in an
    error.

  Your subroutine may compute anything you wish.  In particular, it may
keep track of the entire history of a single (N-round) game.  However,
it will not be able to record past games against any opponent since it
will be unloaded at the end of a single N-round game.  Please be
reasonable with respect to the space and time you intend your program to
use.  Unreasonable programs will have to be dropped from the tournament
at the discretion of the organizers.  Also, if your program ever returns
a faulty play, that is, it returns an M which is neither 1 nor 2, then it
will be dropped from the tournament automatically.

3. Fill in the following information (to be transmitted only by
electronic mail):

     NAME:←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
     AFFILIATION:←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
     STREET:←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
     CITY:←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←  STATE:←←←←←←←←←←←←←  Zip:←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
     COUNTRY:←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
     TELEPHONE:←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
     ELECTRONIC MAIL ADDRESS:←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←


4. Important notice!

       ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
      |   By sending your program to any one of the following   |
      | addresses you agree to waive and release, to the extent |
      | permitted by law, all your copyright rights and other   |
      | intellectual property rights in your computer program.  |
      | You also warrant that no portion of your program or its |
      | use or distribution, violates or is protected by any    |
      | copyright or other intellectual property right of any   |
      | third party.  You also warrant you have the right to,   |
      | and hereby do, grant to IBM a royalty-free license to   |
      | use your program.  If any contestant is a minor under   |
      | the laws of the state in which contestant resides, at   |
      | least one of the contestant's parents should sign this  |
      | warranty and license.  IBM may elect to publish the     |
      | results of the contest; names of participants or their  |
      | submissions will not be published without the written   |
      | approval and signature of the individual authors.       |
      |←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←|

Please transmit your program by March 31, 1986, along with the filled
questionnaire to one of the following addresses:

     CSNET or ARPANET:      megiddo@ibm-sj
     VNET  or BITNET :      megiddo at almvma


4. TRAINING PROGRAM

  For your convenience, we include here an interactive program that lets
you play the game with another "player".  While playing this interactive
program please remember that your goal is actually to SCORE high and not
necessarily to BEAT the other player.  In the tournament, your ability
to affect the player's total score is limited since he plays against many
other players besides you.  Thus you will benefit if you will create
"confidence" so that both of you end up playing C very often.  You have
the option of either playing yourself or using the subroutine that
represents you.  If you use a subroutine then you have to name it MINE
and follow the instructions in Section 3.  Simply append it the following
program.  It is advised that you use this option to test your own program
before submitting it to the tournament.


      INTEGER SCORE,SCORE2,CH1,CH2,PRE1,PRE2,CC,DD,CD,DC
C
      DATA CC,DD,CD,DC/3,1,0,4/
   20 SCORE = 0
      SCORE2 = 0
      PRE1=1
      PRE2=1
      WRITE(6,102)
  102 FORMAT(' ENTER NUMBER OF ROUNDS YOU WISH TO PLAY (0=END)')
  103 FORMAT (I6)
      READ (5,*) NR
      IF (NR.LE.0) STOP
  118 FORMAT(' WILL YOU (1) PLAY OR WILL YOUR SUBROUTINE (2) DO? (1/2)')
  430 WRITE (6,118)
      READ (5,*) II
      IF (II.EQ.2)  GO TO 420
      IF (II.NE.1) GO TO 430
  420 DO 30 JR = 1, NR
  104 FORMAT(' ROUND NO.',I6,'  OF',I6,'  ROUNDS.  PLEASE ENTER 1 OR 2')
      IF (II.EQ.2) GO TO 440
      WRITE (6,104) JR,NR
   40 CONTINUE
      READ (5,*) CH1
      GO TO 450
  440 CALL MINE(NR,JR,PRE2,CH1)
      IF ((CH1-1)*(CH1-2)) 470,71,470
  470 WRITE (6,117)
  117 FORMAT (' YOUR SUBROUTINE RETURNED A FAULTY PLAY')
      GO TO 20
  450 IF ((CH1-1)*(CH1-2)) 70,71,70
   70 IF (CH1.EQ.0) GO TO 20
  105 FORMAT(' PLEASE ENTER EITHER  1  OR  2 .     (0=END)')
      WRITE (6,105)
      GO TO 40
   71 IF (JR-1) 220,220,230
  220 CH2 = 1
      IF (NR.EQ.1) CH2 = 2
      GO TO 300
  230 IF (JR-NR) 250,260,260
  250 CH2 = PRE1
      GO TO 300
  260 CH2 = 2
  107 FORMAT(' PLAY WAS:   YOU=',I3,'  OPPONENT=',I3)
  300 WRITE(6,107) CH1,CH2
      IF (CH1-1) 110,110,120
  110 IF (CH2-1) 130,130,140
  130 SCORE = SCORE + CC
      SCORE2 = SCORE2 + CC
      GO TO 35
  140 SCORE = SCORE + CD
      SCORE2 = SCORE2 + DC
      GO TO 35
  120 IF (CH2-1) 150,150,160
  150 SCORE = SCORE + DC
      SCORE2 = SCORE2 + CD
      GO TO 35
  160 SCORE = SCORE + DD
      SCORE2 = SCORE2 + DD
   35 WRITE (6,106) SCORE,SCORE2
  106 FORMAT (' NEW TOTAL SCORE:    YOU=',I5,'    OPPONENT=',I5)
      PRE1=CH1
      PRE2=CH2
   30 CONTINUE
      GO TO 20
      END


5. SAMPLE PROGRAMS

  For your convenience we include here copies of two sample programs.
The first subroutine, called TIFRTA, plays Tit-for-Tat (see Section 2)
except that it always defects in the last round.  The second, called
GRIM, starts playing C but switches to D the first time th opponent has
played D.  It also always defects in the last round.


      SUBROUTINE TIFRTA (N,J,IHE,MY)
C
C      THIS IS THE TIT-FOR-TAT RULE.  IN ROUND 1 PLAY 1.  IN ROUND  N
C    PLAY 0.  OTHERWISE, PLAY WHAT THE OPPONENT PLAYED IN THE PRECEDING
C    ROUND.
C
C       N = TOTAL NUMBER OF ROUNDS
C       J = CURRENT ROUND
C       IHE = THE CHOICE OF THE OPPONENT IN THE PRECEDING ROUND (1 OR 2)
C       MY = MY CHOICE FOR THE CURRENT ROUND (1 OR 2)
C
      IF (J-1) 20,20,30
   20 MY = 1
      IF(N.EQ.1) MY=2
      RETURN
   30 IF (J-N) 50,60,60
   50 MY = IHE
      RETURN
   60 MY = 2
      RETURN
      END
C
C
      SUBROUTINE GRIM (N,J,IHE,MY)
C
C      THIS IS THE   GRIM  STRATEGY: START WITH  C  AND SWITCH TO  D
C      AS SOON AS THE OPPONENT DOES
C
      IF (J-1) 10,10,20
   10 IX = 1
   20 IF (IHE.EQ.2) IX = 2
      IF (J.EQ.N) IX = 2
      MY = IX
      RETURN
      END

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂16-Feb-86  2310	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #28
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 16 Feb 86  23:10:41 PST
Date: Sun 16 Feb 1986 20:57-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #28
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Monday, 17 Feb 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 28

Today's Topics:
  Seminars - A Design System for Engineering (MIT) &
    Fuzzy Logic and Common Sense Knowledge (SD Sigart) &
    Knowledge Engineering, Ontology (Oregon State) &
    Explanation-Based Learning (MIT) &
    Reactive Systems (SRI) &
    Temporal Logic for Concurrent Programs (CMU),
  Course - Spring Quarter Seminar on Rule-Based Systems (SU)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 1986  10:39 EST (Thu)
From: Claudia Smith <CLAUDIA%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Seminar - A Design System for Engineering (MIT)


           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


                  AN INTEGRATED DESIGN SYSTEM
                        FOR ENGINEERING

                     Robin J. Popplestone
                     Edinburgh University
                           Scotland


   I discuss the representation of mechanical engineering designs in a
Logic programming context, and the exploration of a space of different
possible designs.  Designs are represented in terms of modules, which
are basic concrete engineering entities (eg. motor, keyway, shaft).
Modules interact via ports, and have an internal structure expressed
by the part predicate.  A taxonomic organisation of modules is used as
the basis for making design decisions.  Subsystems employed by the
design system include the spatial relational inference mechanism
employed in the RAPT robot Language, the Noname geometric modeller
developed at Leeds University and the Press symbolic equation solver.
The system is being implemented in the POPLOG system.  An assumption
based truth maintenance system based on the work of de Kleer is being
implemented to support the exploration of design space.


Tuesday, Feb. 18, 1986
4pm
NE43, 8th Floor Playroom
Hosts: Professors Brooks and Lozano-Perez.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 86 09:01 PST
From: sigart@LOGICON.ARPA
Subject: Seminar - Fuzzy Logic and Common Sense Knowledge (SD Sigart)


                The San Diego SIGART presents

            FUZZY LOGIC AND COMMON SENSE KNOWLEDGE

                    Featured Speaker:
                   Dr. Lotfi A. Zadeh

                    Thursday, Feb 20, 1986
                    6:30-8:30pm at UCSD
                    Humanities Library Rm. 1438

Dr.Zadeh will introduce the concept of a disposition and the principle
that common sense knowledge is of a dispositional nature, i.e.  we can
infer dispositional rules which are true in most cases.

The concept of dispositionality leads to the concept of usuality or the
usual value of variables.  We need to develop a system for computing
with and inferring from dispositional knowledge.  Dr.  Zadeh will show
how to use fuzzy logic to deal with the concepts of dispositionality
and usuality in a way which cannot be done with classical logic.  Fuzzy
logic will therefore be shown to provide a framework for commonsense
reasoning.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Feb 86 09:46:27 pst
From: Tom Dietterich <tgd%oregon-state.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - Knowledge Engineering, Ontology (Oregon State)


                KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING AS THE INVESTIGATION
                        OF ONTOLOGICAL STRUCTURE

                          Michael J. Freiling
                         Tektronix Laboratories
                           Beaverton, Oregon

                       Wednesday, February 12, l986
                         Cordley Hall, Room 1109
                         Oregon State University
                            Corvallis, Oregon

Experience has shown that much of the difficulty of learning to build
knowledge-based systems lies in learning to design representation structures
that adequately capture the necessary forms of knowledge.  Ontological
analysis is a method we have found quite useful at Tektronix for analyzing
and designing knowledge-based systems.  The basic approach of ontological
analysis is a step-by-step construction of knowledge structures beginning
with basic objects and relationships in the task domain, and continuing
through representations of state, state transformations, and heuristics for
selecting transformations.  Formal tools that can be usefully employed in
ontological analysis include domain equations, semantic grammars, and
full-scale specification languages.  The principles and tools of ontological
analysis are illustrated with actual examples from knowledge-based systems
we have built or analyzed with this method.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Feb 86 15:20 EST
From: Brian C. Williams <WILLIAMS@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Seminar - Explanation-Based Learning (MIT)

           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


Thursday , February 20  4:00pm  Room: NE43- 8th floor Playroom

                       The Artificial Intelligence Lab
                           Revolving Seminar Series

                          Explanation-Based Learning

                                 Tom Mitchell
                    Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ


The problem of formulating general concepts from specific training
examples has long been a major focus of machine learning research.
While most previous research has focused on empirical methods for
generalizing from a large number of training examples using no
domain-specific knowledge, in the past few years new methods have been
developed for applying domain-specific knowledge to formulate valid
generalizations from single training examples.  The characteristic
common to these methods is that their ability to generalize from a
single example follows from their ability to explain why the training
example is a member of the concept being learned.  This talk proposes a
general, domain-independent mechanism, call EBG, that unifies previous
approaches to explanation-based generalization.  The EBG method is
illustrated in the context of several example problems, and used to
contrast several existing systems for explanation-based generalization.
The perspective on explanation-based generalization afforded by this
general method is also used to identify open research problems in this
area.

------------------------------

Date: Fri 14 Feb 86 18:27:38-PST
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: Seminar - Reactive Systems (SRI)

            AN ARCHITECTURE FOR INTELLIGENT REACTIVE SYSTEMS
                                   OR
                     HOW NOT TO BE EATEN BY A TIGER

                           Leslie Kaelbling
       SRI International AI Center and Stanford University

                    11:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, February 19
       SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)


In this talk I will present an architecture for intelligent reactive
systems.  The ideas are fairly general, but are intended for use in
programming Flakey to carry out complex tasks in a dynamic environment.
Many previous robots simply 'closed their eyes' while a time-consuming
system, such as a planner or vision system, was invoked, allowing
perceptual inputs either to be lost or saved for later processing.  In a
truly dynamic world, things might change to such an extent that the
results of the long calculation would no longer be useful.  Worse yet,
the robot might run into a wall or be eaten by a tiger.  This
architecture will allow the robot to remain aware during long
computations, and to behave plausibly in novel situations.
This talk represents work in progress, so much of the seminar will
be devoted to general discussion.

------------------------------

Date: 14 February 1986 1045-EST
From: Cathy Hill@A.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Seminar - Temporal Logic for Concurrent Programs (CMU)

Speaker: Aravinda Prasad Sistla <aps0%gte-labs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Date:    February 19, 1986
Time:    1:30 - 3:00 pm
Place:   WeH 4623

Title: ON EXPRESSING SAFETY AND LIVENESS PROPERTIES IN TEMPORAL
              LOGIC.

Correctness properties of concurrent programs are usually  classified as
either safety properties or liveness properties. In general, proving a program
correct involves in establishing that the program satisfies certain safety
properties and certain liveness properties, and usually different techniques
 are applied in proving these properties. In this talk we consider many
different definitions of these properties (e.g. safety,strong safety,liveness,
absolute liveness etc.) and investigate what classes of these properties are
expressible in temporal logic. We present syntactic characterization of
formulae that express these properties. Finally, we give algorithms to
recognize if a temporal specification is a safety property or liveness
property.

------------------------------

Date: Wed 12 Feb 86 15:47:58-PST
From: Ted Shortliffe <Shortliffe@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Course - Spring Quarter Seminar on Rule-Based Systems (SU)

         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                    SEMINAR ON RULE-BASED EXPERT SYSTEMS
                     Professors Buchanan and Shortliffe
Comp. Sci. 524                                             Med. Inf. Sci. 229

                       Spring Quarter 1986 - 2 units
                            Tuesday, 3:30-5:00PM
                   TC-135 Conference Room, Medical Center
                         [Class size limited to 16]

This course is a graduate seminar for students wishing to gain a technical
understanding of, as well as a historial perspective on, rule-based expert
systems.  The emphasis of the course will be on an analysis of the research
lessons of MYCIN and related projects in the Knowledge Systems Laboratory,
the strengths and limitations of the rule-based approach to knowledge
representation, and the way in which AI research evolves as new ideas and
concepts are discovered.

The course will meet weekly for 90 minutes and will require substantial
reading assignments for each session.  The required text for the seminar is
"Rule-Based Expert Systems: The MYCIN Experiments of the Stanford Heuristic
Programming Project"; additional related papers will also be assigned.

Working in pairs, all students will be responsible for leading the discussion
once during the quarter.  There will be a final exam.

        Prerequisites: at least one course in artificial intelligence and
                      familiarity with LISP.
        Enrollment: limited to 16; signup in TC-135 or by contacting Ms.
                      Alison Grant (GRANT@SUMEX or 7-6979).  If the course is
                      oversubscribed, preference will be given as follows:
                      MS/AI and MIS grad students, other CSD grad students,
                      non-CSD graduate students and medical students, CSD
                      research staff, undergraduates, auditors.
        2 units, Tu 3:30-5:00, Room TC-135 (Medical Center), Professors
                      Buchanan and Shortliffe.  The course will not be
                      offered again until 1987-88.


April 1: INTRODUCTION
        Readings: None

April 8: KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING
        Readings: Chapters 1,7,35,8,9 [Chapter 4 suggested before 7 for
                                       those unfamiliar with MYCIN]

April 15: USING RULES
        Readings: Chapters 2,3,5,6

April 22: REASONING UNDER UNCERTAINTY
        Readings: Chapters 10,11,12,13 [updated version of Chapter 13 will
                                        be provided]

April 29: GENERALIZED FRAMEWORKS
        Readings: Chapters 14,15,16,33

May 6: OTHER REPRESENTATIONS OF KNOWLEDGE
        Readings: Chapters 21,22,23,24

May 13: EXPLANATIONS/TUTORING
        Readings: Chapters 17,18,20,25,26

May 20: META-LEVEL KNOWLEDGE
        Readings: Chapters 27,28,29

May 22 (Thursday class, 3:30-5pm): EVALUATING PERFORMANCE
        Readings: Chapters 30,31

May 27: no class
        Readings: Chapters 32,34,36

June 3: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
        Readings: None

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂17-Feb-86  0055	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #29
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Feb 86  00:52:25 PST
Date: Sun 16 Feb 1986 21:16-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #29
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Monday, 17 Feb 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 29

Today's Topics:
  Queries - Expert Systems Information & Rule Master Reviews &
    Games, Evolution and Learning Conference & Chess & Micro Prolog,
  Bindings - Prisoner's Dilemma Mailing List,
  Machine Learning - Hopfield Networks,
  Software Review - Personal Computer Scheme

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun 16 Feb 86 22:36:39-EST
From: "Randall Davis" <DAVIS%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Reply-to: davis@mit-mc
Subject: access to info

I'd like to assemble a list of resources of information about expert systems,
organized along the lines indicated below.  If you can think of a
        journal,
        trade magazine,
        newsletter, or
        regularly scheduled conference
not listed below, and can supply the relevant details, please send them to me
(not to the whole list, and please only respond if you have the details
available and accurate).  I'll filter the responses to eliminate duplicates
and re-post to the list it for general consumption.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

FORMAT FOR PUBLICATIONS

NAME
PUBLISHER
EDITOR(S)
SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION (frequency of publication, price)
SUBSCRIPTION ADDRESS (where to write)
CATEGORY: one of        RESEARCH JOURNAL (eg, Artificial Intelligence)
                        RESEARCH NEWSLETTER (eg, AAAI Magazine, SIGART)
                        COMMERCIAL NEWSLETTER (eg, Expert Systems Strategies)
FOCUS: eg, all areas of AI, expert systems technical issues, management issues,
        etc.


FORMAT FOR CONFERENCES

NAME
SPONSORING ORGANIZATION
FREQUENCY OF OCCURENCE
ADDRESS FOR INFORMATION


I have details for
        Journals
                AI Journal
                Journal of Automated Reasoning

        Newsletters
                AAAI Magazine
                Expert Systems Strategies

        Conferences
                IJCAI, AAAI

and would welcome all other info, especially non-US listings.

------------------------------

Date: Fri 14 Feb 86 12:56:42-PST
From: Bill Park <PARK@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Rule Master Reviews?

To whom it may concern:

If you have any experience with Rule Master, would you please tell me
what you think of it?  We are considering using it in a project
related to NASA's space station.

Thanks,
Bill Park (Park@SRI-AI)
(415)859-2233
SRI International
Menlo Park, CA

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 86 02:43:55 GMT
From: nike!im4u!ut-sally!ut-ngp!gknight@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (gknight)
Subject: Games, Evolution & Learning Conference query.

Can anyone give me information on a conference entitled "Games,
Evolution & Learning," held in New Mexico in 1984 or 1985?
The organizer (or any other contact person)?  Proceedings, if
available?  A list of speakers and paper titles?  Etc., etc.
Please send by mail directly to me and I'll post a summary of
info received for the information of others on the nets.

                          Many thanks,

Gary Knight, 3604 Pinnacle Road, Austin, TX  78746  (512/328-2480).
Biopsychology Program, Univ. of Texas at Austin.  "There is nothing better
in life than to have a goal and be working toward it." -- Goethe.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 86 09:42 EST
From: Vu.wbst@Xerox.COM
Subject: Chess game informations needed.

I'm reading about expert system, and would like to try to build an
expert system.  I would appreciate any helpfull hints, pointers to any
existing Chess game expert system, in Interlisp-D would a plus.  I would
like to thank you in advance for any help.

Dinh

Regular mail:
        Dinh Vu
        Xerox Corporation
        800 Philips Rd, Bld 129-38B
        Webster, Ny 14580.

------------------------------

Date: Fri 14 Feb 86 16:56:18-EST
From: FWHITE@G.BBN.COM
Subject: Prolog on VMS and/or MAC

Does anybody know of a public domain version of Prolog for
VAX/VMS or the Macintosh?  Or how about a commercial version?

   Jeff Berliner (BERLINER@G.BBN.COM)

------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 86 18:43:00 PST
From: MEGIDDO@IBM-SJ.ARPA
Subject: Prisoner's Dilemma

Prisoner's dilemma tournament mailing list;
Please send back a note if you wish to receive future announcements.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Feb 86 20:13:13 GMT
From: decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!mordor!ehj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eric H Jensen)
Subject: Re: Hopfield Networks?

In article <1960@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes:

>In a recent issue (Issue 367) of EE Times, there is an article titled
>"Neural Research Yields Computer that can Learn".  This describes a
>simulation of a machine that uses a "Hopfield Network"; from the ...


I got the impression that this work is just perceptrons revisited.
All this business about threshold logic with weighting functions on
the inputs adjusted by feedback (i.e. the child reading) ...
Anybody in the know have a comment?

eric h. jensen        (S1 Project @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)
Phone: (415) 423-0229 USMail: LLNL, P.O. Box 5503, L-276, Livermore, Ca., 94550
ARPA:  ehj@angband    UUCP:   ...!decvax!decwrl!mordor!angband!ehj


  [What is new is that there are now training algorithms for multilayer
  networks -- something that Minsky and Papert declared unlikely in their
  famous book on perceptrons.  Also new is the development of special
  hardware, both chips and full [Boltzmann] processors for the implementation
  of such networks.  Hopfield networks require symmetric connections and
  a form of "relaxation" processing or simulated annealing; Hopfield
  characterizes this as constraint satisfaction or discrete optimization
  by moving through the center of a data space (in somewhat the same manner
  as the Karmarkar algorithm) instead of touring the vertices in the manner
  of the simplex algorithm.  Other multilayer connectionist networks have
  recently been developed that do not require symmetric or even feedback
  connections, except for training feedback.  The breakthrough in these
  latter networks seems to be the notion of adjusting each coefficient
  in proportion to its "responsibility" in making a good or bad decision.
  Determination of proportionate responsibility can be made using partial
  derivatives.  Another possibility that I find intriguing is the use
  of a domain-knowledgeable expert system for identifying "guilty"
  coefficients, as in the system for predicting horse races reported in
  Heuristics for Inductive Learning by Steven Salzberg of Applied Expert
  Systems, IJCAI 85, pp. 603-609.  -- KIL]

------------------------------

Date: Tue 11 Feb 86 22:38:38-CST
From: Rob Pettengill <CAD.PETTENGILL@MCC.ARPA>
Subject: Personal Computer Scheme

I recently purchased an implementation of the Scheme dialect of
lisp for my PC.  I am familiar with GC Lisp, IQ Lisp, and Mu Lisp
for the PC. I use Lambdas and 3600s with ZetaLisp at work.

TI PC Scheme is a very complete implementation of scheme for the
IBM and TI personal computers and compatibles.  It combines high
speed code execution, a good debugging and editing environment,
and very low cost.

The Language:

* Adheres faithfully to the Scheme standard.
* Has true lexical scoping.
* Prodedures and environments are first class data objects.
* Is properly tail recursive - there is no penalty compared
  to iteration.
* Includes window and graphics extensions.

The Environment:

* An incremental optimizing compiler (not native 8086 code)
* Top level read-compile-print loop.
* Interactive debugger allows run time error recovery.
* A minimal Emacs-like full screen editor with a scheme mode
  featuring parethesis matching and auto indenting of lisp code.
* An execute DOS command or "push" to DOS capability - this is
  only practical with a hard disk because of the swap file PCS writes.
* A DOS based Fast Load file format object file conversion utility.
* A fast 2 stage garbage collector.

First Impressions:

Scheme seems to be much better sized to a PC class machine than
the other standard dialects of lisp because of its simplicity.  The
TI implementation appears to be very solid and complete.  The compiled
code that it produces (with debugging switches off) is 2 to  5 times
faster than the other PC lisps that I have used.  With the full screen
editor loaded (there is also a structure editor) there seems to be
plenty of room for my code in a 640k PC.  TI recommends 320k or 512k
with the editor loaded.  The documentation is of professional quality
(about 390 pages), but not tutorial.  Abelson and Sussman↑2's "Structure
and Interpretation of Computer Programs" is a very good companion for
learning scheme as well as the art and science of programming in general.

My favorite quick benchmark -

(define (test n)
  (do
    ((i 0 (1+ i))
     (r () (cons i r)))
    ((>= i n) r)))

runs (test 10000) in less than 10 seconds with the editor loaded - of course
it takes a couple of minutes to print out the ten thousand element list
that results.

The main lack I find is that the source code for the system is not
included - one gets used to that in good lisp environments.  I have
hit only a couple of minor glitches, that are probably pilot error,
so far.  Since the system is compiled with debugging switches off
it is hard to get much useful information about the system from
the dubugger.

Based on my brief, but very positive experience with TI PC scheme and
its very low price of $95 - I recommend it to anyone interested in a
PC based lisp.  You can order from Texas Instruments at 1-800-TI-PARTS.
(Standard disclaimers about personal opinions and having no commercial
interest in the product ...)

Rob Pettengill

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂17-Feb-86  0234	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #30
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Feb 86  02:34:18 PST
Date: Sun 16 Feb 1986 22:35-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #30
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Monday, 17 Feb 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 30

Today's Topics:
  Query - Ambiguous Sentences,
  Cognitive Psychology - Definition & Novice-Expert Differences,
  Theory - Dreyfus' Technology Review Article

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri 14 Feb 86 14:29:21-PST
From: FIRSCHEIN@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: Ambiguous sentences.

I wonder whether AILIST readers have a favorite short sentence for
illustrating multiple ambiguity, say greater than 5 meanings?

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 15 Feb 86 21:38:39 EST
From: bzs%bostonu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
Subject: Re: Sparklers from the Tech Review


>From:     larry@Jpl-VLSI.ARPA
>COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY (a more restricted area than Cognitive Science) attempts
>to understand biologically based thinking using behavioral and psychiatric
>concepts and methods.  This includes the effects emotional and social forces
>exert on cognition.  This group is increasingly borrowing from the following
>groups.

Just curious, but as an undergraduate studying such things at Cornell
in the early 70's I remember being lectured over and over again about
'Cognitive Psychology' which at that point in time seemed to be a
school derived largely from Festinger's works in Cognitive Dissonance
et al (and Brehm and others.) It was generally posed as being
orthogonal to behaviorism (Skinnerianism.) Is this the same 'cognitive
psychology' I suffered through? Or has the term changed?  What do they
call the old stuff, or are we allowed to speak of it anymore (oops)? I
suppose this definition *might* be referring to the same thing, but I
don't see how.

        -Barry Shein, Boston University

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 86 14:38:36 EST (Fri)
From: Robert Rist <rist@YALE.ARPA>
Subject: novice-expert differences

    You can trace back the articles you need if you look at

Snow, R. E., Federico, P. & Montague, W. E. (Eds.). (1980) Aptitude,
learning and instruction, Volume 2. This has articles by VanLehn and
Brown, Stevens and Collins, Anderson and Norman.

Lesgold, A. M. (1984). Acquiring expertise. In Anderson and Kosslyn
(Eds.), Tutorials in learning and memory. Pointers to lots of
different research domains.

Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R. & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem
solving. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of
human intelligence.  This is one of the best summary articles I have
seen.

Anderson, J. R. (Ed.) (1981). Cognitive skills and their acquisition.
A mixed bag, but it contains some real classics.

Gentner, D. & Stevens, A. L. (1983). Mental models. The stuff on
multiple models and debugging is very interesting.

    If you're interested in learning, you could also look at

Anzai, Y. (1984). Cognitive control of real-time event-driven systems.
Cognitive Science, 8, 221-254.

Anzai, Y. & Simon, H. A. (1979). The theory of learning by doing.
Psych. Review, Vol 86, 124-140.

Anderson, R. J. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications.
This has a chapter on expertise development that gives an overview
plus list of references.

                                        Have fun, Rob Rist

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Feb 86 09:44:18 est
From: rjk@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Ruben)
Subject: Response to "Thompson@umass-cs.csnet" re: "Expertize"

In lieu of replying to the apparently incorrect address
"Thompson@umass-cs.csnet", I send my tidbit to the AILIST.

From an abstract but empirically motivated view of the relationship
between expertise and category formation (a criterion useful for
discriminating relatively novice from expert behavior), I suggest
Eleanor Rosch's (U. of C. at Berkeley) work on prototypes.
A particularly good SUMMA is her article "Human Categorization,"
of which I read in draft form but which SHOULD (?) have been
published in ADVANCES IN CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY (Vol. 1),
M. Warren (ed.), Academy Press, London, circa 1976.  I think
that her approach to categorization raises some intelligent and
persuable questions about the role of expertize in categorization:
this article is worth reading, even if it only touches on this question.
Rosch planned to do further research to follow up her questions viz.
expertize, but I have not yet seen it.  (Let me know if you follow
this up.)

Ruben J. Kleiman   rjk@MITRE-BEDFORD


  [The address Thompson%UMASS-CS.CSNet@CSNet-Relay should work
  (regardless of capitalization).  The gateway requires that all
  CSNet mail from the Arpanet be addressed to @CSNet-Relay, and that
  all other @-signs be changed to %-signs.  The .CSNet prior to the
  @CSNet-Relay is sometimes optional.  -- KIL]

------------------------------

Date: 8 Feb 86 00:35:57 GMT
From: decwrl!glacier!kestrel!ladkin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Technology Review article

In article <15030@rochester.UUCP>, lab@rochester.UUCP (Lab Manager) writes:

> "In 3000 years, Philosophy has still not lived up to its promises and
> there's no reason to think it ever will."

An interesting comment. Whenever a problem is solved in Philosophy,
it spawns a whole new field of specialists, and is no longer called
Philosophy. Witness Physics, which used to be called Natural
Philosophy. When Newton took over, it gradually became a new
subject. Witness our own subject, which arose out of the
attempts of Frege to provide a formal foundation for mathematical
reasoning, via Russell, Church, Curry, Kleene, Turing and
von Neumann. Much work in natural language understanding arises
from the work of Montague, and more recently speech act theory
is being used, from Grice, Searle and Vanderveken.
The list goes on, and so do I. Would that AI bear such glorious
fruit. I think it might.

Peter Ladkin

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 86 16:05:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!bantz@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Technology Review article

Dreyfus's book "What Computers Can't Do" was a pretty sorry affair, insofar
as it purported to have a positive argument about intrinsic limits of
computers.  However uncomfortable it makes the AI community feel, though,
the journalistic baiting with extensive quotations from the AI community
itself, ought to have demonstrated the virtues of a bit more humility than
is often shown.  [I'm refering to his gleeful quotation of predictions that,
by 1970 or so a computer would be world chess champion, that fully literate
translations of natural languages would be routine...]
The responses here, so far, seem to be guilty of what Dreyfus is accused of:
failing to engage the opponent seriously, and relying on personal expressions
of distaste or ridicule.  Specifically, Dreyfus does reject the typology of
learning in AI, on the not implausible grounds that it is self-serving, and
not obviously correct (or uniquely correct).
[Please! I am *not* a fan of Dreyfus, and do not endorse most of his claims.]

------------------------------

Date: Sun 16 Feb 86 22:33:41-PST
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: In Support of the Dreyfi

I have now had a chance to read the Technology Review article (thanks to
a copy from Oscar Firschein).  If it is a fair sample of Hubert and
Stuart Dreyfus' forthcoming book, Mind Over Machines, the book should
be required reading.  Not that I necessarily agree with their
positions -- I see their points as problems to be solved rather than
proofs of futility -- but they have now solidified their stronger
arguments and (I presume) shed many of their weaker ones.  I recently
read the introduction to the second edition of Hubert's What Computers
Can't Do and found myself disagreeing with about one item per page.
(To be fair, they or anyone else would find similar disagreement with
my [fuzzy] ideas if I had the ability and temerity to expose them in
writing.)  I did not experience anywhere near the same density of
objections to this new article, Why Computers May Never Think Like People.

I am optimistic that we will be able to build "digital" intelligences
(with perhaps a few analog circuits thrown in as necessary), but I
cannot support my optimisim as well as they support their pessimism.
They are right that the AI "paradigms" of the past have proven weak
and inextensible, and that those of the present are also likely to
fail.  (Five years hence, will not each researcher's proposals start
with "Previous work in this field has had limited success due to ...,
but our new approach will ...?)  They are wrong to assume that the
logic-based symbol-processing paradigm is the only card AI holds.
(Sorry, guys, but I'm not a logic lover.  Explicit definitions and
rules for commonsense reasoning are a useful exercise, but flexible --
and sometimes errorful -- intelligence will ultimately depend on a
patchwork of heuristics and analogies.)  Many of the "feature vs
aspect" problems raised by the brothers are being faced by those of
us researching perception.  Our results are sparse to date, but that
is no proof that pattern recognition and concept formation are
inherently human capabilities.  Hubert and Stuart, as the loyal
opposition to past naivete, may help us to face and overcome the
true difficulties in real-world intelligence -- if they don't get
our funding killed first.

                                        -- Ken Laws

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂20-Feb-86  1558	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #31
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Feb 86  15:54:12 PST
Date: Thu 20 Feb 1986 10:40-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #31
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Thursday, 20 Feb 1986      Volume 4 : Issue 31

Today's Topics:
  Seminars - Classical Conditioning and Contingency (SU) &
    Learnability and the Vapnik-Chervonenkis Dimension (IBM-SJ) &
    Hierarchical Reasoning, Simulation (UPenn) &
    The Architecture of a Rational Agent (Edinburgh) &
    Planning for Robotic Assembly Lines (USC) &
    Distributed Problem Solving (USC) &
    Adaptive Planning (MIT) &
    Deductive and Relational Knowledge Bases (CCA),
  Conference - Symbolics National Users Group Meeting

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 86 18:34:28 pst
From: gluck@SU-PSYCH (Mark Gluck)
Subject: Seminar - Classical Conditioning and Contingency (SU)


The topic of this week's learning seminar will be on associative learning
in animals. We will examine classical conditioning, one of the simplest
and best studied forms of induction. The readings are:

Rescorla & Wagner (1972): Reviews the animal learning data and proposes
               a simple linear model of associative learning which predicts
               than animals will induce relative contingencies between
               stimuli. The algorithm is formally equivalent to the
               Widrow-Hoff predictor in adaptive systems and is a
               special case of the delta rule used by the Rumelhart et
               al. back-propogation algorithm.

The other two papers are two "Cognitive Science" models for classical
conditioning. The first, presented in the Holland et al book, is
a rule-based production system model of classical conditioning. The
second, by Sutton and Barto, is a connectionist/network model for
classical conditioning.

The seminar is in Building 360; Room 364 (near the geology corner).
On Thursday from 1:15-3pm.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 86 14:53:44 PST
From: CALENDAR@IBM-SJ.ARPA
Subject: Seminar - Learnability and the Vapnik-Chervonenkis Dimension (IBM-SJ)

          [Excerpted from the IBM Calendar by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                IBM Almaden Research Center
                       650 Harry Road
                  San Jose, CA 95120-6099


Computer        LEARNABILITY AND THE VAPNIK-CHERVONENKIS DIMENSION
Science         D. Haussler, Department of Mathematics and
Seminar         Computer Science, University of Denver

Fri., Feb. 28   The current emphasis on knowledge-based software has
10: 30 A.M.     created a broader interest in algorithms that learn
B1-413          knowledge structures or concepts from positive and
                negative examples.  Using the learning model recently
                proposed by Valiant, we have attempted to determine
                which classes of concepts have efficient (i.e.,
                polynomial time) learning algorithms.  As noticed
                earlier by Pearl and by Devroye and Wagner, a simple
                combinatorial property of concept classes, the
                Vapnik-Chervonenkis dimension, plays an important
                role in learning and pattern recognition.  We clarify
                the relationship between this property and Valiant's
                theory of learnability.  Our results lead to the design
                of efficient learning algorithms that employ a
                variant of Occam's Razor.  Illustrations are given
                for certain classes of conjunctive concepts and for
                concepts that are defined by various types of regions
                in feature space.  The work reported was done jointly
                with Anselm Blumer, Andrzej Ehrenfeucht and
                Manfred Warmuth of the Universities of Denver,
                Colorado and California at Santa Cruz, respectively.
                Host:  B. Simons

  [A BATS announcement said that the seminar would be at 11:00. - KIL]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 86 00:56 EST
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - Hierarchical Reasoning, Simulation (UPenn)

Forwarded From: Paul Fishwick <Fishwick@UPenn> on Sun 16 Feb 1986 at 12:54


                            HIERARCHICAL REASONING:
                         SIMULATING COMPLEX PROCESSES
                      OVER MULTIPLE LEVELS OF ABSTRACTION

                               Paul A. Fishwick
                          University of Pennsylvania

                                 Ph.D. Defense

This  talk  describes a method for simulating processes over multiple levels of
abstraction.  There has been recent work with  respect  to  data,  object,  and
problem-solving  abstraction,  however,  abstraction in simulation has not been
adequately explored.  We define a process as a hierarchy of distinct production
rule  sets  that  interface  to  each  other  so that abstraction levels may be
bridged where desired.  In this way, the process may be studied at  abstraction
levels  that  are appropriate for the specific task: notions of qualitative and
quantitative reasoning are integrated to form a complete  process  description.
The  advantages  to  such  a  description  are increased control, computational
efficiency and selective reporting of simulation results.  Within the framework
of  hierarchical  reasoning,  we  will  concentrate  on  presenting the primary
concept of process abstraction.

A Common Lisp implementation of the hierarchical reasoning theory called  HIRES
is  presented.    HIRES  allows the user to reason in a hierarchical fashion by
relating certain facets of the simulation to levels of abstraction specified in
terms of actions, objects, reports, and time.  The user is free to reason about
a process over multiple levels by weaving through the levels either manually or
via  automatically  controlled  specifications.  Capabilities exist in HIRES to
facilitate the creation of graph-based abstraction levels.  For  instance,  the
analyst  can create continuous system models (CSMP), petri net models, scripts,
or generic graph models that define the process model  at  a  given  level.  We
present  a  four-level  elevator  system  and a two-level "dining philosophers"
simulation. The dining philosophers simulation  includes  a  3-D  animation  of
human body models.


Time: Wednesday, February 26, 3pm
Place: Moore School, Room 554

Committee:

Dr. Norman Badler (Adviser)
Dr. Timothy Finin (Chairman)
Dr. Insup Lee
Dr. Richard Paul

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 86 17:55:35 GMT
From: Gideon Sahar <gideon%edai.edinburgh.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
Subject: Seminar - The Architecture of a Rational Agent (Edinburgh)

EDINBURGH AI SEMINARS

Date:     Wednesday, 19th February l9986

Time:     2.00 p.m.

Place:    Department of Artificial Intelligence
          Seminar Room
          Forrest Hill
          EDINBURGH.

Dr. Robert C. Moore, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge
(visiting from SRI International) will give a seminar entitled -
"The Architecture of a Rational Agent".


The ultimate goal of artificial intelligence is to build complete,
autonomous, artificial rational agents.   Most research in AI focuses
on one or another component of such an agent:  the vision sybsystem,
reasoning subsystem, language subsystem, etc.   Recently, however, some
attention has begun to be paid to the over-all architecture in which
these subsystems are combined.   The first half of this talk will
discuss how concern for the architecture of rational agents is motivated
by the need to treat language as a form of rational action, and how
this view of language provides a formal framework for treating phenomena
that have been argued to be beyond the scope of formal analysis.   In
the second half of the talk, we will compare the three component
belief/desire/intention model of rational agency typically used in AI
to the two component model cannot satisfactorily account for
cooperation among rational agents, proving a theorem to the effect that
there are situations in which there is no strategy for a group of
two-component agents that is rational by the normal standards of
decision theory.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 1986 13:50-EST
From: gasser@usc-cse.arpa
Subject: Seminar - Planning for Robotic Assembly Lines (USC)

                      USC DPS GROUP MEETING

                       Wednesday, 2/26/86
                         3:00 - 5:00 PM
                     Seaver Science Bldg. 319

Dong Xia (Ph.D. Student, USC) will speak on "An Approach To Planning and
Scheduling for Robotic Assembly Lines"


While extensive studies have been devoted to general robot problem solving
and planning techniques in artifical world in recent years, the progress
towards their practical applications in robotic manufacturing floor has
severely prohibiited by the lack of sound understanding of the assembly
process and an adequate method to deal with real time uncertainties.  In
this talk, we are going to address two of the most fundamental and
interrelated problems, namely task planning and temporal action scheduling.
We study these problems in the context of multiple cooperative robots with
assumed perceptual capabilities which work in a highly shared and dynamic
mechanical environment in a coordinated fashion for a common or different
goal(s). In this presentation, a general system architecture and a hybrid
knowledge representation scheme for a class of assembly lines is proposed
and some important design concepts and problems of robot-based intelligent
assembly lines are identified and discussed. Finally a particular prototype
system, called Miniassembler, is given, which exhibits our concepts and
methods to cope with temporal uncertainty.


Questions: Dr. Les Gasser, USC (213) 743-7794
        or Dong Xia (XIA@USC-CSE.ARPA).

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 1986 15:34-PST
From: gasser@usc-cse.arpa
Subject: Seminar - Distributed Problem Solving (USC)


                    USC DPS GROUP MEETING

                     Wednesday, 2/19/86
                       3:00 - 4:00 PM
                         Seaver 319


Tom Hinke will speak on "Distributed Problem Solving and Architectural
Design".

The talk will cover some preliminary ideas about the application of
distributed problem solving techniques to the domain of computer aided
architectural design. The talk will include a brief overview of caad
work to date, a concept of how DPS could be applied to this area, and a
brief discussion of some of the anticipated problems in applying DPS to
design. The talk is based on very preliminary work in the area and
should be viewed as a forum to generate some initial comments and
direction for the bulk of the research which lies ahead.


Questions: Dr. Les Gasser, (213) 743-7794, or
            Tom Hinke: HINKE@USC-CSE.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1986  17:08 EST
From: David Chapman <ZVONA%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Seminar - Adaptive Planning (MIT)

           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


    Wednesday, February 26  3:00pm  Room: NE43- 8th floor Playroom

                   The Artificial Intelligence Lab
                               Seminar

                         "Adaptive Planning"


                           Richard Alterman

                             UC Berkeley


Consider the case where a planner intends to transfer airplanes.  A
common-sense approach to the problem of transferring airplanes would
be to try to re-use an old existing plan: exit first airplane via
arrival gate, determine departure gate, walk to the departure gate,
and board second airplane via departure gate.  In a small airport this
would work just fine.  But in a larger airport, say Kennedy Airport
where there is more than one terminal, if the arrival and departure
gates were in different terminals, the plan would have to be modified
(i.e. the planner would have to take a shuttle between terminals).

The problem of adaptive planning is to refit old plans to novel
circumstances.  In the case of the example above, an adaptive planner
would refit the old plan for transferring airplanes to the novel
circumstances at the Kennedy Airport.  The importance of adaptive
planning is that it adds a dimension of flexibility to the
common-sense planner.

Key elements in the theory of adaptive planning are its treatment of
background knowledge and the introduction of a notion of planning by
situation matching.  The talk will motivate and discuss four kinds of
background knowledge.  It will describe a number of kinds of situation
difference that can occur between an old plan and the new planning
situation.  It will discuss situation matching techniques that are
based on the interaction of the planner's current circumstances and
its background knowledge.  An important theme throughout this
discussion will be the control of access to knowledge.

------------------------------

Date: Tue 18 Feb 86 15:40:17-EST
From: Sunil Sarin <SKS@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Seminars - Deductive and Relational Knowledge Bases (CCA)

           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

CCA Colloquium Series

DATE:      February 20, 1986-- Thursday
TIME:      10:00-11:00 a.m.
PLACE:     4th floor large conference room, Four Cambridge Center

TITLE:     Deductive Databases and a Relational Knowledge Base
           A Survey of Work at ICOT, Japan

SPEAKERS:  Haruo Yokota and Masaki Murakami (Institute for New
           Generation Computer Technology (ICOT--Japan) )


CCA (Computer Corporation of America) is located at Four Cambridge
Center, which is on Broadway, behind Legal Seafood.  Tell the
security desk you are visiting CCA and they will send you up to
CCA on the 5th floor.  Tell CCA's receptionist to call Barbara
Wong who will show you where the seminar is.  (If you can't
remember that, simply say you're here for the colloquium.)

Abstracts of works to be covered:

1. Deductive Database System based on Unit Resolution
   by Haruo Yokota, Ko Sakai, Hidenori Itoh

   This paper presents a methodology for constructing a deductive
   database system consisting of an intensional processor and a
   relational database management system.  A setting evaluation
   is introduced.  The intensional processor derives a setting
   from the intensional database and a given goal and sends the
   setting and the relationship between setting elements to the
   management system.  The management system performs a unit
   resolution with setting using relational operations for the
   extensional databases.  An extended least fixed point operation
   is introduced to terminate all types of recursive queries.

2. A Model and an Architecture for a Relational Knowledge Base
   by Hauro Yokota, Hidenori Itoh

   A relational knowledge base model and an architecture which
   manipulates the model are presented.  An item stored in the
   relational knowledge base is a term, and it is retrieved by
   unification operation between the terms.  The relational
   knowledge base architecture we propose consists of a number
   of unification engines, several disk systems, a control processor,
   and a multiport page-memory.  The system has a knowledge compiler
   to support a variety of knowledge representations.

3. Formal Semantics of a Relational Knowledge Base
   by Masaki Murakami, Hauro Yokota, Hidenori Itoh

   A mathematical foundations for formal semantics of term relations
   [Yokota et al. 85] is presented.  A term relation is a basic data
   structure of a relational knowledge base.  It is an enhanced version
   of relational model in a database theory.  It may include syntactically
   complex structures such as terms or literals containing variables as
   items of relations.  The items are retrieved with operations called
   retrieval-by-unification.  We introduce as a semantic domain of
   n-ary-term relations n←T←RELATIONS and define a partial order on them.
   We characterize retrieval-by-unification as operations on n←T←RELATIONS
   with monotone functions and greatest lower bounds.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 86 13:50:19 pst
From: grover@aids-unix (Mark Grover)
Subject: Conference - Symbolics National Users Group Meeting

[Submitted to AILIST because: 1) it is an initial announcement. Followup will
take place via the address provided. 2) Symbolics computers are a major tool
of AI researchers. 3) The majority of work on Symbolics computers is related
to AI. 4) Users are widespread: well over 100 sites and 1500 machines.]


                 Are you getting bored with TV:MENU-CHOOSE?
                    Do you know your FOSS from your CSE?
                Are you ready for Release 7 and Common Lisp?

             No matter what your answers, you are invited to the

                                Second Annual
                   SYMBOLICS NATIONAL USERS GROUP MEETING
                                  (SNUG86)
                        Georgetown University Campus
                               Washington, DC
                               June 2-6, 1986

                  (organized by the Capital Area SLUG)

with...
        Speakers        Poster Sessions         War Stories
        Panels          Discussions             Tutorials
        Debates         Wizards                 BOFs

The SLUG National Board has approved plans from the Capital Area SLUG to hold
a five-day National Symposium (SNUG86).  This year's Symposium will consist
of three days of meetings, preceeded by two days of special Symbolics
Educational Services Tutorials at a small additional cost per session.
Planning is well underway to build on the experience of last year's National
SLUG Symposium in San Francisco. This year we hope for an even more exciting
gathering at the beautiful Georgetown University campus on the Potomac River
to discuss, debate and learn the best in Lisp Machine techniques.

                             This year's theme:
                   "Programming in Style on the Symbolics"

The goal of this year's Symposium is to make explicit the experience of
long-time users in terms of programming style. There are so many ways of
achieving a particular function, but which are the most efficient, elegant
and consistent? This Symposium is a means to share such important
information, where common needs and individual problems can be addressed.

Registration costs (separate from tutorials) will be considerably less than
comparable meetings. Inexpensive campus housing will be available.  A
detailed announcement will be forthcoming.

                     RESPONSE DEADLINE IS MARCH 28, 1986

It is essential that the Symposium planning committee hear from you in order
to gauge interest.  To receive future announcements, you must fill in a
response form BY MARCH 28 to the mailing address below.

We also also invite program suggestions.  Please address program-related
correspondence to ATTN: Programs, or via ARPAnet mail to the Program Chair,
Mark Grover (Advanced Decision Systems), at GROVER@AIDS-UNIX.ARPA (or
Grover@AIDS-DC.Dialnet.Symbolics.COM). This address is for technical program
session proposals only!  Questions regarding registration, facilities and
exhibits should be directed to address and phone below.

                             Planned Activities

Monday and Tuesday: Tutorials taught by Symbolics personnel to include
Introduction to Lisp Machine Programming, Site Maintenance, Common Lisp and
advanced topics. Tuesday evening: Third Party Vendor Hospitality suites.

Wednesday: Keynote presentations, concentrating on Release 7 and SLUG
activities such as the national library.

Thursday and Friday: program sessions to include Windows and Processes;
Flavors; Of Mice and Menus; Large Scale Data Management; Networking; File
Storage for Lisp Objects; Group Programming Etiquette; Security; and
Personalizing Your Environment.  Many other topics are under consideration.
Please make additional suggestions of session proposals on the form below.

Poster sessions will be held in parallel with the program sessions.  A poster
session allows a user to display charts and code on a fixed display in shared
quarters while interested attendees are free to move about, listen to and
discuss these informal talks.  Further, there will be free time for Birds of
a Feather (BOF) gatherings.  We hope to provide some Lisp Machine time for
these sessions.

This is a USER-oriented meeting.  The informal availability of Symbolics
"wizards" was a significant attraction of last year's Symposium which will be
repeated.

                             Conference Location

Located near the Potomac River and Rock Creek Park, the Georgetown area of
Washington DC is well-known for its many shops and restaurants.  Georgetown
University provides excellent meeting facilities and inexpensive
accommodations. The many monuments and museums of Washington are within short
rides via bus or metro.


                             SNUG86 MAILING LIST
         (Mail this form to the address below. No ARPA mail please).

        Ms. Annmarie Pittman
        SNUG86
        655 15th Street NW #300
        Washington, DC 20005
        (202) 639-4228

First Name:             Last Name:
Title:
Organization:
Address:
City:                   State:          Zip Code:
Telephone:

←←←←← Please add me to the mailing list.

←←←←← I plan to attend SNUG86.

←←←←← I would be interested in attending Symbolics Education Services
        one-day tutorials on the subjects(s):

←←←←← I would like to propose sessions on the subject(s):

←←←←← I would be interested in giving a poster session on the topic:

←←←←← My company is interested in exhibiting at the conference. Please
        send exhibit materials.

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂21-Feb-86  0101	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #32
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Feb 86  01:00:40 PST
Date: Thu 20 Feb 1986 22:49-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #32
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Friday, 21 Feb 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 32

Today's Topics:
  Queries - AI Teaching/Tutoring Package &
    Expert Systems and Software Engineering &
    Micro-PROLOG & 68k Unix LISP & NL Dialogue,
  Literature - LISP Texts & Logo & MRS,
  Methodology - Taxonomizing

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Feb 86 15:37:28 EST
From: munnari!goanna.oz!ysy@seismo.CSS.GOV (yoke shim YAP)
Subject: AI Teaching/Tutoring Package


Recently, I heard that a teaching / tutoring package has been
written using Artificial Intelligence techniques. It seems that
this piece of information appeared in an article. Has anyone
read or heard anything about this article? I would like to
get hold of this article and if possible, contact the author
of this package.

Y. S. YAP
Dept. of Computing
Faculty of Applied Science
RMIT                             ...or     munnari!goanna.oz!ysy@SEISMO.ARPA
GPO BOX 2476V
Melbourne  VIC.  3001
AUSTRALIA

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 86 14:18:11 -0100
From: Jorun Eggen <j←eggen%vax.runit.unit.uninett@nta-vax.arpa>
Subject: Expert Systems and Software Engineering

Hello out there!

Can anyone give me references to work carried out in order to see what
theory, methodologies and tools from Software Engineering can do to assist
the process of building expert systems? Or to put it another way: Is Knowledge
Acquisition today at the same level as Software Engineering was 20 years ago?
If the answer is yes, what can we learn from Software Engineering to help us
to provide reinventing the wheel and instead consentrate on the new unsolved
problems?

References to articles, reports, people, books etc. are welcome.
Thanks a lot, and be aware that my net-address "uninett" is spelled with
double t.

                Jorun Eggen
                RUNIT/SINTEF
                N-7034 Trondheim-NTH
                NORWAY

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 86 16:50:56 GMT
From: amdcad!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!deba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Deba Patnaik)
Subject: micro-PROLOG info wanted

I am thinking of purchasing "micro-PROLOG". I would like to know
Price, comments and who distributes it.
Are there any other PROLOG  ( Interepreters or Compilers ) ?
deba@maryland.arpa
deba%umdc.bitnet@wiscvm.arpa

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 86 16:00:16 -0500
From: johnson <johnson@dewey.udel.EDU>
Subject: seeking lisp for 68k unix world

Computer Logic, Inc., is seeking a license for an efficient lisp
running on 680XX-based Unix systems.

We are looking for an implementation of lisp that meets the
following criteria:

. source code is available
. runs on 68k-based UNIX machines
. allows loading of modules written in C, or other system-level language
. small and fast (even at the expense of advanced features)
. one-time license available, or nominal run-time environment royalties
. floating-point and integer arithmetic (arbitrary precision is NOT required)
. lisp "impurities" such as: setq, rplaca, rplacd

If you know of any lisp that meets these criteria, please pass us a pointer
to its author.


If YOU own an implementation of lisp, and would like to SELL it to us,
please send us:

. a description of your lisp, including:
      .  a list of the primitive functions
      .  the hardware/software requirements for a run-time system
      .  the hardware/software requirements for building your system from
         source code
      .  some indication of the hard and soft limits of your system
         (w/r/t maximum number of objects, number of symbols,
         number of numbers, etc.)
      .  a brief description of any special features that you feel
         would expedite software development in your lisp,
         {editors, compilers, structured-objects, environment-dumps}

. how many times can you perform (T1 2000) without garbage collection on
  a machine with 1048576 bytes of available memory?
    (please extrapolate or interpolate from tests run on whatever
     machine is available to you; be sure tell us the way that you arrived
     at your figure)
  when the garbage collection does occur, how long does it take?

. how long does (T2 20) take?

. if your lisp has an iterative construct  (do, loop, or prog with goto)
  how long does it take to perform (T3 5000)?


Feel free to modify these functions syntactically to allow them to run
in your version of lisp, but please include the modified versions along
with your results. (ps: these functions will run unmodified
in muLISP-85)

Most unix systems provide a means to measure the elapsed time allocated
to a given process (try "man time" on your system). Please give your
times in terms of this quantity. If no such facility is available, be
sure to indicate the conditions under which you ran the benchmark.

(DEFUN T1
   (LAMBDA (N)
     (COND ((> N 1) (LIST N (T1 (- N 1))))
           (T (LIST 1)))))

(DEFUN T2
   (LAMBDA (N)
       (COND ((< N 2) 1)
             (T (+ (T2 (- N 1)) (T2 (- N 2)))))))

(DEFUN T3
   (LAMBDA (N)
      (LOOP (IF (= N 0) (RETURN)) (SETQ N (- N 1)))))

Please send all description responses to:

        Apperson H. Johnson
        Computer Logic Inc.
        2700 Philadelphia Pike, P.O. Box 9640
        Wilmington, De. 19809

{johnson@udel will read any pointers}

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 86 11:34:13 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!cstvax!hwcs!aimmi!george@SEISMO  (George Weir)
Subject: Dialogue help please needed ?

I am currently am working on Dialogue Management Systems, with Natural
Language Understanding in it.  Despite weeks of effort (including
Saturdays), I find my system is still unable to handle it with several
forms of natural expression.
Please help to cure my depressions :  if you have a system working which
manages dialogue in of course natural language (complete with efficient
interpreter/complier), and it's able to cope with all known syntactic forms,
as well as most semantics, please send me a copy, or post it to this news
group.
I prefer a system which works in English but Norwegian would do it.
                                   thanks you,
                                                Ingy
P.S.  Doesn't matter if your documentation isn't up to IEEE standards, if
they are close to it.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Feb 86 11:12:03 pst
From: sdcsvax!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!pamp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: request for LISP source code

In article <8602031844.AA28255@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> you write:

>  I am teaching an AI course for the continuing education program at
>St. Mary's College in Southern Maryland. This is my first time teaching
>LISP and I would appreciate access to the source code for "project-
>sized" LISP programs or any other teaching aids or material. We are
>using the 2nd edition of both Winston's AI and Winston&Horne's LISP.
>I hate to ask for help, but we are pretty far from mainstream AI
>down here and my students and I all have full time jobs so any help we
>can get from the professional AI community would be greatly
>appreciated by all of us.
>
>                                       Bob Woodruff
>                                       Veda@paxrv-nes.arpa


I'd like to make a recommendation in additional texts. We have found
Winston&Horn to be a bit irritating to work with, especially since
the problems and answers are either too vaguely stated or filled with
bugs. Two other books that we have found to handle LISP more adaquately
are:
        Touretzky,David S.,1984,Lisp - A gentle introduction to
                symbolic computation;Harper & Row , New York, 384p.
                -- A good intro text for those who have no
                experience in symbolic processing (generally, most
                conventional programmers). Gives a good covering of
                the basic principles behind LISP.

        Wilensky,Robert,1984,LISPcraft,W.W.Norton & Company,New York
                385p.
                --Covers programming techniques and LISP philosophy
                over different dialects quite well.


One thing that has helped with the training around the AI center
here is to take the time to give a little of the history of
LISP, where and why the different dialects have developed, and
a little of history of hardware currently in use. A short time
spent on relations to PROLOG couldn't hurt. (A good short article
of LISP and PROLOG history is:

        Tello,Ernie,April 16,1985, The Languages of AI research,
                PC Magazine,v.4,no.8,p.173-189.)

Hope this helps.

P.M.Pincha-Wagener

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 86 22:11:11 GMT
From: decvax!cwruecmp!leon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Leon Sterling)
Subject: Re: Pointers to Logo?

The AI department at the University of Edinburgh used to teach its
undergraduate courses in AI using Logo several years ago.
The lecture notes appear as a book called
Artificial Intelligence, published (I think) by Edinburgh University
Press, the editor is Alan Bundy.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 86 07:57:07 PST
From: Curtis L. Goodhart <goodhart%cod@nosc.ARPA>
Subject: MRS

There was a recent question about what MRS stands for.  According to
"The Compleat Guide to MRS" by Stuart Russell Esq., Stanford University
Knowledge Systems Laboratory Report No. KSL-85-12, page 2, "MRS stands for
Meta-level Representation System".  In the preface on page i MRS is
described briefly as "a logic programming system with extensive meta-level
facilities.  As such it can be used to impement virtually all kinds of
artificial intelligence applications in a wide variety of architectures."

      Curt Goodhart  (goodhart@nosc ... on the arpanet))

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Feb 86 10:13 EST
From: Seth Steinberg <sas@BBN-VAX.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Taxonomizing in AI and Dumplings

Building a taxonomy is a means of predicting what will be found. Anyone
who has read any of Steve Gould's columns in Natural History will be
quite familiar with this problem.  When Linnaeus devised the modern
biological taxonomy of the plant kingdom he was criticized for his
heavy emphasis on the sex lives of the flowers.  He was considered
crude and salacious.  He worked in a hurry to preempt any competetive
scheme and avoid a split in the field but his choice was prophetic and
his emphasis on sex was vindicated by Darwin's later work which argued
that sex was both essential to selection (no sex, no children) AND to
the origin and maintenance of the species.

Of course for every "good" taxonomy there are dozens of losers. Take
the old earth, air, fire and water taxonomy with its metaphoric power.
It still works; look in the Science Fiction and Fantasy section of your
local bookstore.  Of course chemists and physicists use Medeleev's
taxonomy of the elements which has much better predictive power. There
is nothing wrong with building these structures as long as they can be
used to predict or explain something.  Breaking up LISP programs into
families based on the number of parentheses has only limited predictive
power.

Building a taxonomy is no more or less than constructing a theory and
building a theory is useful because it gives people an idea of what to
look for.  A sterile taxonomy is not particularly useful.  That is the
positive side.  A theory also tells people what to ignore and biology
is full of overlooked clues, all carefully noted and explained, waiting
to be illuminated by a new theory.

I think the debate going on now is typical in any young field.  If we
had a theory we could use it to march rapidly along its path, much like
an Interstate highway.  Even if we find it doesn't get us where we want
to go, we had a smooth pleasant ride.  Witness classical
electrodynamics, its collapse and the advent of quantum theory.  The
justifiable fear is that we will race past our exit and exclude or
ignore crucial signs which indicate the correct path.

Personally I think that it is time to set up a few theories of AI so
that we can have the fun of knocking them down.  As one might expect
most theories at this stage are either useless and lack predictive
power (except possibly for predicting tenure) or are so weak and full
of holes that you can drive a truck full of LISP machines through them.
When people start developing theories with real predictive power that
are really hard to knock down then we can relax a bit.

                                                Seth Steinberg

P.S. This month's Scientific American had an article on quantum effects
in biological reactions at low temperatures and the author argues that
conformational resonances (which determine reactivities) are driven by
quantum tunneling!  Maybe there ARE carcinogenic vibrations!

------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 86 17:02:35 GMT
From: hplabs!utah-cs!shebs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stanley Shebs)
Subject: Re: taxonomizing in AI: useless, harmful

In article <3600038@iuvax.UUCP> marek@iuvax.UUCP writes:
>... Taxonomizing is a debatable art of empirical
>science, usually justified when a scientist finds itself overwhelmed with
>gobs and gobs of identifiable specimens, e.g. entymology.  But AI is not
>overwhelmed by gobs and gobs of tangible singulars; it is a constructive
>endeavor that puts up putatative mechanisms to be replaced by others.  The
>kinds of learning Michalski so effortlessly plucks out of the thin air are not
>as incontrovertibly real and graspable as instances of dead bugs.

Now I'm confused!  Were you criticizing Michalski et al's taxonomy of
learning techniques in pp. 7-13 of "Machine Learning", or the "conceptual
clustering" work that he has done?  I think both are valid - the first
is basically a reader's guide to help sort out the strengths and limitations
of dozens of different lines of research.  I certainly doubt (and hope)
no one takes that sort of thing as gospel.

For those folks not familiar with conceptual clustering, I can characterize
it as an outgrowth of statistical clustering methods, but which uses a
sort of Occam's razor heuristic to decide what the valid clusters are.
That is, conceptual "simplicity" dictates where the clusters lie.  As an
example, consider a collection of data points which lie on several
intersecting lines.  If the data points you have come in bunches at
certain places along the lines, statistical analysis will fail dramatically;
it will see the bunches and miss the lines.  Conceptual clustering will
find the lines, because they are a better explanation conceptually than are
random bunches.  (In reality, clustering happens on logical terms in
a form of truth table; I don't think they've tried to supplant statisticians
yet!)


>Please consider whether taxonomizing kinds of learning from the AI perspective
>in 1981 is at all analogous to chemists' and biologists' "right to study the
>objects whose behavior is ultimately described in terms of physics."  If so,
>when is the last time you saw a biology/chemistry text titled "Cellular
>Resonance" in which 3 authors offered an exhaustive table of carcinogenic
>vibrations, offered as a collection of current papers in oncology?...

Hmmm, this does sound like a veiled reference to "Machine Learning"!
Personally, I prefer a collection of different viewpoints over someone's
densely written tome on the ultimate answer to all the problems of AI...


>More constructively, I am in the process of developing an abstract machine.
>I think that developing abstract machines is more in the line of my work as
>an AI worker than postulating arbitrary taxonomies where there's neither need
>for them nor raw material.
>
>                               -- Marek Lugowski

I detect a hint of a suggestion that "abstract machines" are Very Important
Work in AI.  I am perhaps defensive about taxonomies because part of my
own work involves taxonomies of programming languages and implementations,
not as an end in itself, but as a route to understanding.  And of course
it's also Very Important Work... :-)
                                                        stan shebs

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂21-Feb-86  1323	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #33
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Feb 86  13:21:46 PST
Date: Fri 21 Feb 1986 09:29-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #33
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Friday, 21 Feb 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 33

Today's Topics:
  Literature - New CSLI Reports & Indiana U. CS TR #176,
  Reviews - SI Interactions, 2/86 & Applied Intelligence 12/85,
  History - Airline Reservation Systems,
  Machine Learning - Hopfield Networks,
  Methodology - Dreyfus' Technology Review Article

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed 19 Feb 86 17:20:04-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: New CSLI Reports

      Report No. CSLI-85-34, ``Applicability of Indexed Grammars to
   Natural Languages'' by Gerald Gazdar, Report No. CSLI-85-39, ``The
   Structures of Discourse Structure'' by Barbara Grosz and Candace L.
   Sidner, and Report No. CSLI-85-44, ``Language, Mind, and Information''
   by John Perry, have just been published.  These reports may be
   obtained by writing to Trudy Vizmanos, CSLI, Ventura Hall, Stanford,
   CA 94305 or Trudy@SU-CSLI.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 86 16:12:00 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!iubugs!iuvax!marek@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Indiana U. CS TR #176

Due to conditions of poverty, the Indiana University Computer Department
is henceforth unable to supply free copies my technical report (#176) titled
"Why Artificial Intelligence Is Necessarily Ad Hoc: One's Thinking/Approach/
Model/Solution Rides on One's Metaphors".  The volume of requests has simply
outstripped our financial resources.  However, a modest bribe of $2.00 will
suffice to propagate the item to you.  More substantial unrestricted grants
from corporate, philanthropic or governmental sources are always welcome.
Please make your bribes PAYABLE TO Indiana University Foundation, but do
continue to ADDRESS REQUESTS for our TRs TO Nancy Garrett, Computer Science
Department, Lindley Hall 101, Bloomington, Indiana 47405.  You could let Nancy
know in advance that you're sending money for one: nlg@iuvax.uucp or
nlg@indiana.csnet.
As the saing goes, sorry for the inconvenience but that's the breaks.  Several
people got the TR for free, but no more.  Perhaps it should be noted that any
run on IU tech reports will generate a bribe request  proportional to the
length of the item.  TR #176 has 52 pages.
                        -- Marek Lugowski
                           Indiana University Computer Science
                           Bloomington, Indiana 47405
                           marek@indiana.csnet

------------------------------

Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: Review - SI Interactions, 2/86

Summary of
AI Interactions, Volume 1, Number 7, February 1986

Texas Instruments has invested more money in AI research than the Japanese
in their Fifth Generation Project.  The Computer Systems Laboratory is
working to design computers with several different types of processors
on the same bus or chip, e. g. array procesors, graphics processors and
symbolic processors.  They also developing an architectural concept called
Odyssey which combines multiple digital signal processing chips on a single
NuBus board.

At the Purdue University  in West Lafayette, they have developed
an expert sytem that assists farmers in determining the best way to market
their prodcut.  It has 180 rules with the prototype done in three months.

Discussion of the features of Personal Consultant Plus.  It includes
frames, meta-rules and mapping functions.  Also discusses the use of contexts.

Texas Instruments has announced Relational Table Management System, a
database system for the Explorer.  It interfaces with the Lisp environment.
A domain can store any type of object including graphics, pointers,
lists, relation names or large amounts of text.  It interfaces with
Natural Language Menu, a graphics tool kit,PROLOG.

Texas Instruments has developed an expert system to assist pilots
in the F-16.  The Defense Department awarded TI 3 million dollars to
develop a similar system for attack helicopters.  The F-16 system
handles two specific problems, towershaft failure and loss of canopy.
Towershaft is the mechanism by which the F-16 jet engine provides
power to other aircraft systems.

------------------------------

Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: Review - Applied Intelligence 12/85

Summary of
Applied Intelligence, Volume 2 Number 4 December 1985

At the recent Instrumentation Society of America show in
Philadelphia, four major vendors announced their intent to offer
PICON, Lisp Machine Incorporated's real-time expert system, to
their customers.  Leeds and Northrup demonstrated the system in
conjunction with their MAX 1 process control system.  PICON is
running at six customer sites.  A large chemical processing company
is using PICON in control  The knowledge engineering was done by
a process engineer who developed a 350-frame knowledge base in
a period of two months.  Oak Ridge International bought PICON for
robotics and Lockheed bought it for CAD applications.

PICON has been installed at the Texaco chemical plant in Port Arthur
where it monitors several processes.  It interfaces to a Honeywell
TDC-2000 process control system.  Pete Thompson is the Manager of
Artificial Intelligence at Texaco's Computer and Information Systems
Department.

Lisp Machine Incorporated also announces the availability of ObjectLisp,
a second generation approach to object-oriented programming.  It directly
invokes local functions within the context of the object and releases
the programmer from having to define message-passing structures.
ObjectLISP allows both object variables and object functions to
be either created or deleted interactively without requiring recompilation.

MCC has made its sixth order for Lambda hardware from LMI.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 86 23:47:40 est
From: decvax!utzoo!dciem!mmt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Airline Reservation Systems


>    Date: 23-Jan-86 12:52:19-PST
>    From: jbn at FORD-WDL1
>    ...  Contrast this with Minksy's recent claims seen here that airline
>    reservation systems were invented by someone at the MIT AI lab in the
>    1960s.
>
>I decided to take a close look at this contrast.  After searching through
>the recent archives, the only mention by Minsky of airline reservation
>systems that I can find is:
>
>    And I'm pretty sure that the first practical airline reservation was
>    designed by Danny Bobrow of the BBN AI group around 1966.!
>
>Now that I have refreshed my memory with what he actually said, I think the
>contrast is not quite as unflattering.  Given the use of the adjective
>``practical'', someone might even be able to make a case that he is right.

The case would not be watertight.  Air Canada was using a reservation
system developed at Ferranti Electric Inc., (a Toronto-based firm not
to be confused with Ferranti in UK), running on a redundant computer
system called Gemini, from 1961 for about 10 years until it was replaced.
It did all the things one associates with computerized reservation systems,
and was used by reservation clerks to deal with the public, so I guess
you could call it "practical."

Incidentally, this system led to the development of what may be the
first fully commercial time-sharing computer system (I mean memory-protected,
independent multi-user multitasking), the FP-6000, which was first
delivered around the end of 1962 or the beginning of 1963.  The design
for that machine formed the basis of the ICL 1900 series in the UK.
It, like the airline reservations system, was a totally Canadian design
(if you will forgive the chauvinism).

Martin Taylor

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt

------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 86 05:32:32 GMT
From: sdcsvax!elman@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jeff Elman)
Subject: Re: Hopfield Networks?

In article <5413@mordor.UUCP>, ehj@mordor.UUCP (Eric H Jensen) writes:
> In article <1960@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes:
> >In a recent issue (Issue 367) of EE Times, there is an article titled
> >"Neural Research Yields Computer that can Learn".  This describes a
> >simulation of a machine that uses a "Hopfield Network"; from the ...
>
> I got the impression that this work is just perceptrons revisited.
> All this business about threshold logic with weighting functions on
> the inputs adjusted by feedback (i.e. the child reading) ...

This refers to some work by Terry Sejnowski, in which he uses a method
developed by Dave Rumelhart (U.C. San Diego), Geoff Hinton (CMU), and Ron
Williams (UCSD) for automatic adjustment of weights on connections between
perceptron-like elements.  Sejnowski applied the technique to
a system which automatically learned text-to-phoneme correspondances
and was able to take text input and then drive a synthesizer.
The current work being done by Rumelhart and his colleagues certainly
builds on the early perceptron work.  However, they have managed to
overcome one of the basic deficiencies of the perceptron.  While perceptron
systems have a simple learning procedure, this procedure only worked
for simple 2-layer networks, and such networks had limited power (they
could not recognize XOR patterns, for instance).  More complex multi-layer
networks were more powerful, but -- until recently -- there has been
no simply way for these systems to automatically learn how to adjust
weights on connections between elements.
Rumelhart has solved this problem, and has discovered a generalized
form of the perceptron convergence procedure which applies to networks
of arbitrary depth.  He and his colleagues have explored this technique in
a number of interesting simulations, and it appears to have a tremendous
amount of power.  More information is available from Rumelhart
(der@ics.ucsd.edu or der@nprdc.arpa), or in a technical report "Learning
Internal Representations by Error Propagation" (Rumelhart, Hinton, Williams),
available from the Institute for Cognitive Science, U.C. San Diego,
La Jolla, CA 92093.

Jeff Elman
Phonetics Lab, UCSD
elman@amos.ling.ucsd.edu / ...ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdamos!elman

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 86 21:30:45 GMT
From: decwrl!glacier!kestrel!ladkin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Peter Ladkin)
Subject: Re: "self-styled philosophers"

In article <3189@umcp-cs.UUCP>, mark@umcp-cs.UUCP (Mark Weiser) writes:

> A recent posting called the Dreyfus' "self-styled philosophers".  This
> is unfair, since Hubert Dreyfus is also styled a philosopher by many another
> philosopher in the area of phenomenology.

Agreed. He is also a professional philosopher, holding a chair at
U.C. Berkeley. His criticisms of AI claims are thoroughly thought
through, with a rigor that a potential critic of his views would
do well to emulate. He has done AI great service by forcing
practitioners to be more self-critical. AAAI should award him
distinguished membership!
His main thesis is that there are certain human qualities and
attributes, for example certain emotions, that are just not the
kinds of things that are amenable to mechanical mimicry. This
general claim seems unexceptional. His examples may not
always be the most appropriate for his claims, some of
his arguments seem to be incorrect, and, since he isn't a
practicing computer scientist, his knowledge of current research
is lacking. But it is intellectual sloppiness to deride him
without addressing his arguments.
There is, however, a political component to the discussion.
He believes he is able to show that certain types of research
cannot justify the claims they make on the basis of which they
are funded. He may be right in some of these cases. This is
clearly a sensitive issue, which muddies the intellectual
waters. Both sides would do well to separate the issues.

Peter Ladkin

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 11 Feb 86 03:48:30 PST
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!amdcad!amd!hplabs!fortune!redwood!rpw3@ucbvax
      .berkeley.edu (Rob Warnock)
Subject: Re: Technology Review article

+
| The [Technology Review] article was written by the Dreyfuss brothers, who ...
| claim...  that people do not learn to ride a bike by being told how to do it,
| but by a trial and error method that isn't represented symbolically.
+

Hmmm... Something for these guys to look at is Seymour Papert's work
in teaching such skills as bicycle riding, juggling, etc. by *verbal*
and *written* means.  That's not to say that some trial-and-error
practice is not needed, but that there is a lot more that can be done
analytically than is commonly assumed.  Papert has spent a lot of time
looking at how children learn certain physical skills, and has broken
those skills down into basic actions, "subroutines", and so forth.

After reading his book "Mindstorms", I picked up three apples and, following
the directions in the book, taught myself to juggle (3 things, not 4-"n") with
only a few minutes practice. Particularly useful were his warnings of which
errors were associated with which levels of the subroutine hierarchy. (Oddly
enough, most errors in the overall performance come not from the coordination
of the three balls, but from not mastering the most basic skill, throwing-
and-catching a single ball. The most serious mistake here is looking at the
balls at any points in the trajectory *other* than at the very top.)

So... there is at least SOME hint that the difference between "knowledge"
and "skills" is not as vast as we normally assume, *if* the "skills" are
analyzed properly with a view to learning.


Rob Warnock
Systems Architecture Consultant

UUCP:   {ihnp4,ucbvax!dual}!fortune!redwood!rpw3
DDD:    (415)572-2607
USPS:   627 26th Ave, San Mateo, CA  94403

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 86 23:44:45 GMT
From: decvax!linus!philabs!dpb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Paul Benjamin)
Subject: Re: Re: "self-styled philosophers"

> In article <3189@umcp-cs.UUCP>, mark@umcp-cs.UUCP (Mark Weiser) writes:
> > A recent posting called the Dreyfus' "self-styled philosophers".  This
> > is unfair, ...
>
> Agreed. He is also a professional philosopher, ...

Baloney. His views show a total lack of understanding of science,
together with an inability to perform useful work relating to science.
For example, in his recent article, he recounts an "experiment"
he conducted to show that chessplayers do not use reasoning very
much, but just play instinctively. This experiment consisted of
an International Master playing against a weaker player. The IM
was forced to add a sequence of numbers while playing, thus
supposedly occupying his reasoning capability. The IM won anyway,
thus supposedly showing that chess is not primarily a reasoning
venture, or more precisely, that the difference between being a
master and just very good is not due to superior reasoning.
But wait a minute! How does this qualify as an experiment? Where
is the control group? Did he have the IM play a number of players,
sometimes having to add, sometimes not, and compare their results?
NO. Did he vary the distracting task, in case addition was not
demanding enough? NO.
In short, this experiment means nothing, since the IM may well have
played worse than he would have without having to add, but won
anyway. This type of "evidence" is constantly cited by Dreyfus to
support his views, but it's meaningless, due to his inability to
perform good work.
Also, he remarks that he and his brother have both failed to improve
to a master level in chess, and somehow uses this to support his
views, too! His basic argument is that if reasoning is so important,
then he should be able to make master, implying that he is a good
reasoner! It obviously has never occurred to him to ask someone
who is a master if reasoning is important to him. I am a USCF master,
and can guarantee that improving my reasoning capability has raised
my rating (over 300 points in the last few years). It seems arrogant
for him to reach conclusions about fields in which he is not
accomplished. This applies to both chess and AI.
Paul Benjamin

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 86 15:57:27 GMT
From: nike!topaz!harvard!bu-cs!bzs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Re: "self-styled philosophers"

>For example, in his recent article, he recounts an "experiment"
>he conducted to show that chessplayers do not use reasoning very
>much, but just play instinctively. This experiment consisted of
>an International Master playing against a weaker player. The IM
>was forced to add a sequence of numbers while playing, thus
>supposedly occupying his reasoning capability. The IM won anyway

I just repeated this experiment and I think he is right. I forced
my SUN to add sequences of numbers while playing chess with me and
I lost.

Here, do it yourself:

        main()
        {
                int i,j;
                for(;;) for(i=j=0; i < 10000 ; i++) j += i ;
        }

save this in file foo.c, compile with 'cc foo.c' and say:

        a.out & (runs it in the background)
        chesstool

it slows it down only a tad, barely noticeable, but I still keep losing!
AMAZING! my computer is human!
        -Barry Shein, Boston University

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂23-Feb-86  1525	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #35
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 23 Feb 86  15:25:18 PST
Date: Sun 23 Feb 1986 11:39-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #35
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Sunday, 23 Feb 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 35

Today's Topics:
  Games - Computer Othello & Computer Chess,
  Automata - Self-Replication and Artificial Life,
  Methodology - A Thought on Thinking,
  Humor - AI Koans & The Naive Dog Physics Manifesto

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 86 21:34:13 EST
From: Kai-Fu.Lee@SPEECH2.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Computer Othello (Bill)

           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


In the recent North American Computer Othello Championship Tournament,
our department's entry, BILL, placed second in a field of 11.  The
final standings were:
        1.  Aldaron (C. Heath)          7.5 - 0.5
        2.  Bill (K. Lee & S. Mahajan)  7   - 1
        3.  Brand (A. Kierulf)          5   - 3
        3.  Fort Now (?)                5   - 3

Bill's only loss was to Aldaron, the defending champion, as well as
the program that should have beaten Iago in 1981.  However, Bill's
loss was due to the choice of color in the game with Aldaron.  In an
unofficial rematch with Aldaron, Bill won with the colors reversed.
Furthermore, Bill soundly defeated the program that tied Aldaron.

With the many improvements that we have in mind and the enthusiastic
participation this year, we expect an exciting championship next year.
If anyone is interested in more information about Bill, this tournament,
or the game transcripts, please send mail to kfl@speech2 or mahajan@h.

------------------------------

Date: 17 February 1986 1954-EST
From: Hans Berliner@A.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: computer chess (final)

           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The Eastern  Team championship is  essentially over.  Hitech  won and
drew  today,  producing  a final  score  of  5.5  -  .5.   It  played
remarkably well.   Outside of falling  into an opening trap  due to a
deficiency in its book, and being outplayed a little in game four but
recovering  when  the opponent  made  an  error,  its play  is  above
criticism.  It played  mainly against expert  level players,  a class
that is almost extinct in Pittsburgh, and beat every one of them.  It
drew its final game with a strong master rated nearly equal (2291) to
Hitech.   It had  black in  4 games,  and white  in two;  a noticable
disadvantage.  Mike  Valvo who directs the ACM  tournaments played on
board one  for the  team and  finished with  a score  of 4.5  to 1.5.
Hitech played on  board two, and Belle played on  board three.  Belle
apparently has had a hardware  overhaul, and played  much better than
it had recently.  However, on  a comparison basis, Belle scored 5- 1,
losing in  the last  round, and it  had 4 whites  and two  blacks and
played against  slightly weaker  opponents than  Hitech.   The fourth
board human  on the team  was a  catastrophe, scoring less  than 50%.
The crucial  match was in  the fifth round and  ended in a  draw with
both computers winning and both  humans losing, thus making the match
a draw and ruining our chances of winning the title (the team had won
all its previous matches).  In  the final round, there are still some
unfinished games, but the team should do no worse than draw, giving a
team record of 5 -1 (two drawn  matches).  Overall, it is safe to say
that on our  team the species @u[robot sapiens]  far outperformed the
species @u[homo sapiens].

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 86 10:20:20 EST
From: Chris←Langton%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: Artificial Life

    I read in the ailist a series of comments on the size of self-reproducing
systems (ARPA.AIList, Volume 3, Issue 71, 06/01/85 - starting with the
message from zim@mitre of 05/24/85 )
I have published an article wherein I exhibit a self-reproducing configuration
embedded in a cellular automaton which occupies a mere 10x15 cell rectangle.
The construction is based on a modification of one of Codd's components
(see Codd: Cellular Automata) in his simplification of von Neumann's
self-reproducing machine. My article is published in: Physica 10D (1984)
North Holland, pp 135-144, entitled 'self-reproduction in cellular automata'.

Basicly, this configuration consists of a looped pathway with a construction
arm extending out from one corner. Signals cycling around the loop cause
the construction arm to be extended by a certain amount and then cause a
90 degree corner to be built. as this sequence is executed 4 times (due
to the same signal sequence cycling around the loop 4 times), the four
sides of an offspring loop are built. When the extended construction arm
runs into itself, the resulting collision causes the two loops to detach
from each other and also triggers the construction of a new construction
arm on each loop. The new arm on the parent loop is located at the
next corner 'downstream' (in the sense of signal flow) from the original
site. Thus, the parent loop will go on to build another loop in a new
direction. Meanwhile, when the offspring was formed, a copy of the signal
sequence that serves as the description was trapped inside it when the
two detached from one another, thus it, too, goes on to build offspring.
The result is a growing colony of loops that expands out into the array,
consisting of a reproductive outer fringe surrounding a growing 'dead'
core, in the manner of a coral reef or the cross section of a tree.
Details are to be found in the article. Although this construction is
not capable of universal construction or computation, it clearly
reproduces itself in a non-trivial manner, unlike the reproduction under
modulo addition rules, of which Fredkin's reproducing system is an example.

I am also working on cellular automaton simulations of insect colonies and
artificial biochemistries. I have another article coming out in the proceedings
of the conference on 'Evolution, Games, & Learning' held at the Los Alamos
National Labs last May. It is entitled 'studying artificial life with cellular
automata'. There will be a video tape available soon from Aerial Press in
Santa Cruz which illustrates the self-reproducing loops as well as the
artificial insect colony simulations and other examples of `artificial life'.

I would be very interested in hearing from anybody who is working on anything
which might fall under the general heading 'artificial life'. I would also
like to try to get together a workshop, with computer support, where people
who have been working in this area could get together and have a 'jam session'
of sorts, and see each other's stuff. Any proceedings from such a workshop
would benefit greatly from having a video published along with it. If anybody
is interested in helping to organize such a workshop, send me a message. I
can be reached at: CGL%UMICH-MTS@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA

       USPS:  Christopher G. Langton / EECS Dept. / University of Michigan /
              Ann Arbor MI 48109

       MA-BELL (now divorced from PA-ATT) 313-763-6491

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 15 Feb 86 15:09:11 GMT
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: A Thought


                                From Vol 4 # 26:-  "The idea is
to get kids to be more thoughtful about thinking by getting them to
try to think about how animals think, and by taking the results of
these comtemplations and actually building animal-like creatures that
work." Alan Kay.
                                From Vol 3 # ??:- Date: Tue, 12 Mar 85
"Just as man had to study birds, and was able to derive the underlying
mechanism of flight, and then adapt it to the tools and materials
at hand, man must currently study the only animal that thinks
in order to derive the underlying principles there also." Frank Ritter

I am struck by two (or more?) very different uses of the word "think"!

Gordon Joly
ARPA: gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
UUCP: ...mcvax!ukc!kcl-cs!qmc-ori!gcj

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Feb 86 00:08:02 PST
From: "Douglas J. Trainor" <trainor@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU>
Subject: a cuppla ai koans


from <colonel%buffalo.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>

One day SIMON was going to the cafeteria when he met WEIZENBAUM, who
said: "I have a problem for you to solve." SIMON replied, "tell me more
about your problem," and walked on.

===================================================================

from <Kelley.pa@Xerox.COM>

How long would a simulation of its own lifetime survive?

What is the rate of change of all metaphors for the viability of that rate?

===================================================================

someone resent me Gabriel's old '83 koan <robins@usc-isib>:

A famous Lisp Hacker noticed an Undergraduate sitting in front of a
Xerox 1108, trying to edit a complex Klone network via a browser.
Wanting to help, the Hacker clicked one of the nodes in the network
with the mouse, and asked "what do you see?"  Very earnesty, the
Undergraduate replied "I see a cursor." The Hacker then quickly pressed
the boot toggle at the back of the keyboard, while simultaneously
hitting the Undergraduate over the head with a thick Interlisp Manual.
The Undergraduate was then Enlightened.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 86 14:38 PST
From: Cottrell@NPRDC
Subject: The Naive Dog Physics Manifesto

From: Leslie Kaelbling <Kaelbling@SRI-AI.ARPA>
From: MikeDixon.pa@Xerox.COM
From: haynes@decwrl.DEC.COM (Charles Haynes)


                                     SEMINAR

                           From PDP to NDP through LFG:
                         The Naive Dog Physics Manifesto

                               Garrison W. Cottrell
                            Department of Dog Science
               Condominium Community College of Southern California


          The Naive Physics Manifesto (Hayes, 1978) was a  seminal  paper  in
     extending  the theory of knowledge representation to everyday phenomena.
     The goal of the present work is to extend this approach to Dog  Physics,
     using  the  connectionist  (or  PDP)  framework  to encode our everyday,
     commonsense knowledge about  dogs  in  a  neural  network[1].   However,
     following Hayes, the goal is not a working computer program.  That is in
     the province of so-called performance theories of Dog Physics (see,  for
     example,  my  1984  Modelling the Intentional Behavior of the Dog). Such
     efforts are bound to fail, since they must correspond to empirical data,
     which  is  always  changing.   Rather,  we  will  first  try to design a
     competence theory of dog physics[2], and, as with Hayes and Chomsky, the
     strategy  is  to  continually  refine  that, without ever getting to the
     performance theory.

          The approach taken here is to develop a  syntactic  theory  of  dog
     actions  which  is  constrained  by  Dog  Physics.   Using  a variant of
     Bresnan's Lexical-Functional Grammar,  our  representation  will  be  an
     context-free  action  grammar,  with  associated s-structures (situation
     structures).   The  s-structures  are  defined  in  terms  of  Situation
     Dogmatics[3],  and  are  a partial specification of the situation of the
     dog during that action.

          Here  is  a  sample  grammar  which  generates  strings  of  action
     predicates corresponding to dog days[4], (nonterminals are capitalized):

        Day -> Action Day | Sleep

        Action -> Sleep | Eat | Play | leavecondo Walk

        Sleep -> dream Sleep | deaddog Sleep | wake

        Eat -> Eat chomp | chomp

        Play -> stuff(Toy, mouth) | hump(x,y) | getpetted(x,y)

        Toy -> ball | sock

        Walk -> poop Walk | trot Walk | sniff Walk | entercondo


          Several regularities are captured  by  the  syntax.   For  example,
     these  rules  have  the  desirable property that pooping in the condo is
     ungrammatical.  Obviously such grammatical details are not innate in the
     infant  dog.   This  brings  us  to the question of rule acquisition and
     Universality.  These context-free action rules are assumed to be learned
     by a neural network with "hidden" units[5] using  the  bark  propagation
     method (see Rumelhart & McClelland, 1985; Cottrell 1985).  The beauty of
     this is that  Dogmatic  Universality  is  achieved  by  assuming  neural
     networks to be innate[6].

          The above rules generate some impossible sequences, however.   This
     is  the  job of the situation equation annotations.  Some situations are
     impossible, and this acts as a filter on  the  generated  strings.   For
     example, an infinite string of stuff(Toy, mouth)'s are prohibited by the
     constraint that the situated dog can only fit one ball and one  sock  in
     her mouth at the same time.  One of the goals of Naive Dog Physics is to
     determine these commonsense constraints.  One of our  major  results  is
     the  discovery  that  dog  force  (df)  is  constant.  Since df = mass *
     acceleration, this means that smaller dogs accelerate faster,  and  dogs
     at rest have infinite mass.  This is intuitively appealing, and has been
     borne out by my dogs.
     ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
        [1]We have decided not to use FOPC, as this has been proven by Schank
     (personal communication) to be inadequate, in a proof too loud to fit in
     this footnote.
        [2]The use of competence theories is a standard  trick  first  intro-
     duced  by  Chomsky, which avoids the intrusion of reality on the theory.
     An example is Chomsky's theory of light bulb changing, which  begins  by
     rotating the ceiling...
        [3]Barwoof & Peppy (1983).  Situation Dogmatics (SD) can be  regarded
     as a competence theory of reality. See previous footnote.  Using SD is a
     departure from Hayes, who exhorts us to "understand what [the  represen-
     tation]  means." In the Gibsonian world of Situation Dogmatics, we don't
     know what the representation means.  That would  entail  information  in
     our  heads.  Rather, following B&P, the information is out there, in the
     dog. Thus, for example, the dog's bark means there are  surfers  walking
     behind the condo.
        [4]Of course, a less ambitious approach would just try to account for
     dog day afternoons.
        [5]It is never clear in these models where these units are hidden, or
     who hid them there. The important thing is that you can't see them.
        [6]Actually  this  assumption  may  be too strong when applied to the
     dogs under consideration. However, this is much weaker than Pinker's as-
     sumption  that  the  entirety  of  Joan  Bresnan's mind is innate in the
     language learner.  It is instructive to see how  his  rules  would  work
     here.   We  assume hump(x,y) is innate, and x is bound by the default s-
     function "Self".  The first time  the  puppy  is  humped,  the  mismatch
     causes  a  new  Passive  humping entry to be formed, with the associated
     redundancy rule. Evidence for the generalization to other predicates  is
     seen in the puppy subsequently trying to stuff her mouth into the ball.

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂23-Feb-86  1748	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #34
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 23 Feb 86  17:48:24 PST
Date: Sun 23 Feb 1986 11:28-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #34
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Sunday, 23 Feb 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 34

Today's Topics:
  Seminar - Inferring Domain Plans in Question Answering (SRI),
  Course - Connectionist Summer Workshop Reminder (CMU),
  Conference - Expert Database Systems Advance Program

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu 20 Feb 86 18:04:16-PST
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: Seminar - Inferring Domain Plans in Question Answering (SRI)

             INFERRING DOMAIN PLANS IN QUESTION-ANSWERING

                 Martha E. Pollack  (POLLACK@SRI-AI)
                    AI Center, SRI International

                    11:00 AM, MONDAY, February 24
       SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)

The importance of plan inference (PI) in models of conversation has been
widely noted in the computational-linguistics literature, and its
incorporation into question-answering systems has enabled a range of
cooperative behaviors.  The PI process in each of these systems, however, has
assumed that the questioner (Q) whose plan is being inferred and the
respondent (R) who is drawing the inference have identical beliefs about the
actions in the domain.  In this talk I will argue that this assumption is too
strong, and often results in failure not only of the PI process, but also of
the communicative process that PI is meant to support.  In particular, it
precludes the principled generation of appropriate responses to queries that
arise from invalid plans.  I will present a model of PI in conversation that
distinguishes between the beliefs of the questioner and the beliefs of the
respondent.  This will rest on an account of plans as mental phenomena:
"having a plan" will be analyzed as having a particular configuration of
beliefs and intentions.  Judgements that a plan is invalid will be associated
with particular discrepancies between the beliefs that R ascribes to Q, when
R believes Q has some particular plan, and the beliefs R herself holds.
An account of different types of plan invalidities will be given, and shown
to provide an explanation for certain regularities that are observable in
cooperative responses to questions.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 86 20:04 EST
From: Dave.Touretzky@A.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Course - Connectionist Summer Workshop Reminder (CMU)

            Connectionist Summer Workshop Reminder

This is a reminder that the deadline for applying to attend the connectionist
summer workshop to be held June 20-29 at Carnegie Mellon is March 1st.
Applications are welcomed from graduate students and recent Ph.D.'s and
M.D.'s who are actively involved in connectionist research.

 ---> This is not just a summer school for training new
      connectionists, as a previous announcement may have
      implied.  We plan to organize small working groups and hold
      lively discussions with visiting speakers.  New research
      will be presented and people are encouraged to bring their
      software for demos; we'll supply the machines.

To apply, send a copy of your vita and one relevant paper, technical
report, or research proposal to:  Dr. David Touretzky, Computer Science
Department, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 86 13:15:00 GMT
From: sdcsvax!ncr-sd!ncrcae!usceast!kersch@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
      (Larry Kerschberg)
Subject: Conference - Expert Database Systems -- Advance Program

Conference Advance Program and Registration Forms
First International Conference on Expert Database Systems
Sheraton Charleston Hotel
April 1-4, 1986
Sponsored by:
Institute of Information Management, Technology and Policy
College of Business Administration
University of South Carolina
In Cooperation With:
American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)
Association for Computing Machinery -- SIGMOD, SIGART, and SIGPLAN
IEEE Computer Society -- Technical Committee on Data Base Engineering
Agence de l'Informatique, France
Tuesday, April 1, 1986
Tutorial Day
8:30 am - 12:00 pm      Morning Parallel Tutorials I
IA:     Introduction to Artificial Intelligence
Instructor:  Dr. Elaine Rich, MCC, Austin, Texas
Dr. Rich  is currently leading a natural language research team at
MCC. She is the author of the widely-read book, Artificial
Intelligence,  as well as numerous technical papers.
Course Description:  This tutorial will provide an introduction to the
important concepts and techniques of Artificial Intelligence (AI).
The major topics are:  What is an AI technique?;  Problem solving as
heuristic search; Heuristic search techniques such as hill climbing,
best first search, problem decomposition, constraint satisfaction;
Knowledge representation and inference including logic-based methods,
default reasoning, slot and filler methods and production rules.
IB:     Database Management
Instructor:  Professor Michael Stonebraker, UC  - Berkeley, California
Dr. Stonebraker is a full professor of Computer Science at the
University of California, Berkeley.  He is the original implementor of
the INGRES system and is a co-founder of Relational Technology, Inc.
which markets INGRES to engineering and business users.
Course Description:  This tutorial will provide an overview of
Database Management.  The major topics are:  Traditional data models
and query languages including network, hierarchical, and relational
models; Database services such as transaction management, query
optimization, protection, views, integrity control; New approaches to
data models including semantic data models, logic programming, CAD/CAM
data models; Themes of Expert Database Systems such as extended views,
active databases, procedural objects, inheritance, and new data types.
1:30 pm - 5:00 pm               Afternoon Parallel Tutorials II
IIA:    Expert Systems -- An Introduction
Instructor:  Professor Charles Rich, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Dr. Rich is Principal Research Scientist at the Artificial
Intelligence Laboratory of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  He
is co-principal investigator of the Programmer's Apprentice Project at
MIT.
Course Description:  This is an introductory tutorial for those who
intend to develop or manage the development of new expert systems, as
well as those who want to evaluate the potential for using expert
systems in their own work.  No previous background is assumed.  The
topics include:  Expert systems features including expert-level
performance, symbolic and heuristic information, and the separation of
Knowledge from Inference; Application areas for expert systems;
Programming techniques used for expert system development including
rules, frames, logic programming; and the use of incremental
prototypes for expert systems development.
IIB:    Logic Programming and Databases
Instructor:  Dr. Steve Hardy, Teknowledge, Inc., Palo Alto, California
Dr. Hardy is currently Product Manager at Teknowledge.  He was the
Principal Designer of the M.1 Expert System Shell.
Course Description:  This tutorial will provide an overview of the
important concepts relating to logic programming and databases.  The
major topics are:  Logic and databases; Prolog:  A logic language;
Prolog:  Its practical difficulties; High-level logic languages
including shells for Prolog; Current applications; What the future
holds.
Wednesday, April 2, 1986
8:00-12:00 am           Registration
8:45-9:00 am            Opening Remarks
    Chairman:  Donald A. Marchand, University of South Carolina, USA
9:00-10:00 am           Keynote Address
    Chairman:  Larry Kerschberg, University of South Carolina, USA
To be announced
        Ronald J. Brachman and Hector J. Levesque*, AT&T Bell Labs, USA
        and University of Toronto*, Canada
10:00-10:30 am  Coffee Break
10:30-12:00 am  Session 1:  Object-Oriented Systems
    Chairman:  Reid Smith, Schlumberger-Doll Research, USA
Object Prototypes and Database Samples for Expert Database Systems
        G.T. Nguyen, IMAG, Universite de Grenoble, France
Displaying Database Objects
        D. Maier, P. Nordquist* and M. Grossman, Oregon Graduate
        Center and Intel  Corp.*, USA
A Personal Universal Filing System Based on the Concept-Relation Model
        H. Fujisawa, A. Hatakeyama and J. Higashino, Hitachi, Ltd., Japan
12:00-1:30 pm   Lunch
1:30-3:00 pm            Afternoon Parallel Sessions
Session 2A:     Theory of Knowledge Bases
    Chairman:  Setsuo Ohsuga, University of Tokyo, Japan
Control of Processes by Communication over Ports as a Paradigm for
Distributed Knowledge-Based System Design
        A.S. Cromarty, Advanced  Information and Decision Systems, USA
Representing and Manipulating Knowledge Within "Worlds"
        H. Kaufmann and A. Grumbach*, C.G.E..-- Laboratoires de
        Marcoussis and Ecole Superieure d'Electricite*, France
Completeness and Consistency in Knowledge Base Systems
        W. Marek, University of Kentucky, USA
Session 2B:     Intelligent Database Interfaces
    Chairman:  Bonnie L. Webber, University of Pennsylvania, USA
Supporting Goal Queries in Relational Databases
        A. Motro, University of Southern California, USA
Design and Experimentation of IR-NLI:  An Intelligent User Interface
to Bibliographic Databases
        G. Brajnik, G. Guida and C. Tasso, Universita di Udine, Italy
When does Non-Linear Text Help?
        D. Shasha, New York University, USA
3:00-3:30 pm            Coffee Break
3:30-5:00 pm    Panel Session:  Are Data Models Dead?
    Chairman:  Michael L. Brodie, Computer Corporation of America, USA
6:30-9:30 pm            Great Gatsby Night
Thursday, April 3, 1986
8:30-10:00 am   Session 4:  Knowledge System Architectures
    Chairman:  Michele Missikoff, IASI-CNR,  Italy
The Do-Loop Considered Harmful in Production System Programming
        M. van Biema, D.P. Miranker and S.J. Stolfo, Columbia
        University, USA
A Relational Representation for Knowledge Bases
        R.M. Abarbanel and M.D. Williams, IntelliCorp, USA
Interfacing Relational Databases and Prolog Efficiently
        S. Ceri, G. Gottlob and G. Wiederhold, Stanford University, USA
10:00-10:30 am  Coffee Break
10:30-12:00 am  Morning Parallel Sessions
Session 5A:     Deductive Databases
    Chairman:  D. Stott Parker, Jr., UCLA and Silogic, USA
Negative Queries in Horn Databases
        Shamin Naqvi, AT&T Bell Laboratories, USA
Safety and Compilation of Non-Recursive Horn Clauses
        Carlo Zaniolo, MCC, USA
Recursive Axioms in Deductive Databases:  The Query/Subquery Approach
        L. Vieille, European Computer-Industry Research Center (ECRC),
        West Germany
Session5B:      Reasoning in Expert Database Systems
    Chairman:  James Bezdek, University of South Carolina, USA
Evaluation of Recursive Queries Using Join Indices
        P. Valduriez and H. Boral, MCC, USA
An Algebraic Approach to Recursive Inference
        Y.E. Ioannidis and E. Wong, University of California - Berkeley, USA
A Fuzzy Relational Calculus
        A. Zvieli, Louisiana State University, USA
12:00-1:30 pm   Lunch
1:30-3:30 pm            Afternoon Parallel Sessions
Session 6A:     Semantic Query Optimization
Chairman:  Matthias Jarke, New York University, USA
A Knowledge-Based Approach to Query Optimization
        C.V. Malley and S.B. Zdonik, Brown University, USA
Semantic Query Optimization:  Additional Constraints and Control
Strategies
        U.S. Chakravarthy, J. Minker and J. Grant*, University of
        Maryland and Towson State University*, USA
Integrity Enforcement on Prolog-based Deductive Databases
        H. Decker, ECRC, West Germany
Session 6B:     Knowledge-Based Modeling and Design
    Chairman:  Edgar H. Sibley, George Mason University, USA
Modeling Linguistic User Interfaces
        M. Pilote, Toronto, Canada
How Abstraction Can Reduce Ambiguity in Explanation Problems
        S. Letovsky, Yale University, USA
A Framework for Design/Redesign Experts
        A.L. Furtado, M.A. Casanova* and L. Tucherman*, Pontificia
        Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro and IBM do Brasil*, Brazil
Flexible Interfaces and the Support of Physical Database Design Reasoning
        M. Prietula and G. Dickson*,Dartmouth College and University
        of Minnesota*, USA
3:30-4:00 pm            Coffee Break
4:00-5:30 pm 7. Panel Session:  Inference in Expert Database Systems
    Chairman:  Herve Gallaire, ECRC, West Germany
6:00-9:00 pm            Red, White and Bluegrass Night
Friday, April 4, 1986
8:00-10:00 am   Session 8:  Knowledge Management
    Chairman: Alain Pirotte, Philips Research Lab, Belgium
An Analysis of Rule Indexing Implementations in Data Base Systems
        M. Stonebraker, T. Sellis and E. Hanson, UC-Berkeley, USA
Querying a Rule Base
        L. Cholvy and R. Demolombe, Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches
        de Toulouse, France
Updating Propositional Formulas
        A. Weber, Universitat Karlsruhe, West Germany
Invited Lecture:  Beyond the Knowledge Level
        Mark. S. Fox, Carnegie-Mellon University, USA
10:00-10:30 am  Coffee Break
10:30-12:00 am  9.  Panel Session:  Open Issues in Expert Database Systems
    Chairman:  Robert Balzer, USC- Information Sciences Institute, USA
12:00-12:15 pm  Closing Ceremony
    Chairman:  Donald A. Marchand, University of South Carolina, USA


All Payments must be made in US Currency.  Make checks payable to the
Institute of Information Managment, Technology and Policy and mail the
form to
        Ms. Libby Shropshier, Conference Treasurer
        Institute of IMTP
        College of Business Administration
        University of South Carolina
        Columbia, SC, 29208
        Telephone:  (803) 777-5766

  [The original included conference and hotel registration forms. -- KIL]

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂26-Feb-86  1512	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #36
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Feb 86  15:12:41 PST
Date: Wed 26 Feb 1986 10:48-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #36
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Wednesday, 26 Feb 1986     Volume 4 : Issue 36

Today's Topics:
  Seminars - Solution to the Self-Referential Paradoxes (CSLI) &
    Approximate Deduction in Single Evidential Bodies (SRI) &
    Refutation Method for Horn Clauses with Equality (UPenn) &
    Persistent Memory (SU),
  Conferences - Suggestions for AAAI-86 &
    Theoretical Issues in NL Processing

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon 24 Feb 86 09:04:40-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - Solution to the Self-Referential Paradoxes (CSLI)


                           CSLI COLLOQUIUM

                  LOGIC OF POINTERS AND EVALUATIONS:
            THE SOLUTION TO THE SELF-REFERENTIAL PARADOXES
                             Haim Gaifman
    Mathematics Department The Hebrew University Jerusalem  Israel
                           Visiting at SRI
                          February 27, 1986
                             Ventura Hall

Imagine the following exchange:

Max:          What I am saying at this very moment is nonsense.
Moritz:       Yes, what you have just said is nonsense.

Evidently Max spoke nonsense and Moritz spoke to the point. Yet Max
and Moritz appear to have asserted the same thing, namely: that Max
spoke nonsense.  Or consider the following two lines:

line 1:    The sentence written on line 1 is not true.
line 2:    The sentence written on line 1 is not true.

Our natural intuition is that the self-referring sentence on line 1 is
not true (whatever sense could be made of it). Therefore the sentence
on line 2, which asserts this very fact, should be true. But what is
written on line 2 is exactly the same as what is written on line 1.

I shall argue that the unavoidable conclusion is that truth values
should be assigned here to sentence-tokens and that any system in
which truth is only type-dependent (e.g., Kripke's system and its
variants) is inadequate for treating the self-referntial situation.

Since the truth value of a token depends on the tokens to which it
points, whose values depend in their turn on the tokens to which they
point,and so on, the whole network of pointings (which might include
complicated loops) must be taken into account.

I shall present a simple formal way of representing such networks and
an algorithm for evaluating the truth values. On the input 'the
sentence on line 1' it returns GAP but on the input 'the sentence on
line 2' it returns TRUE. And it yields similarly intuitive results in
more complicated situations. For an overall treatment of
self-reference the tokens have to be replaced by the more general
pointers. A pointer is any obgect used to point to a sentence-type (a
token is a special case of pointer it points to the sentence of which
it is a token). Calling a pointer is like a procedural call in a
program, eventually a truth valye (TRUE, FALSE or GAP) is returned -
which is the output of the algorithm.

I shall discuss some more recent work (since my last SRI talk) -
variants of the system and its possible extensions to mathematical
powerful languages.  Attempts to make such comprehensive systems throw
new light on the problem of constructing "universal languages".

------------------------------

Date: Mon 24 Feb 86 15:00:13-PST
From: RUSPINI@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: Seminar - Approximate Deduction in Single Evidential Bodies (SRI)

AURA (Automated Uncertainty Reasoning Assembly) is about to resume its
AURAcles after some months of suspended animation. The next talk
(abstract below) is scheduled for next Friday, February 28, 10AM at
EK242. We plan to meet as regularly as possible each Friday thereafter
at the same time.



                       APPROXIMATE DEDUCTION IN
                       SINGLE EVIDENTIAL BODIES

                          Enrique H. Ruspini
                    Artificial Intelligence Center
                          SRI International

The main objective of this talk is the review of ongoing research on
the interpretation and manipulation of conditional evidence within
single evidential bodies. In the context of a single body of evidence,
conditional evidence is expressed as constraints on the possible
values of propositional truth under the assumption that a specific
proposition within the frame of discernment is known to be true. In
this context deductive inference consists of the combination of the
information about the probable truth of ground propositions (facts)
and conditional evidence (rules) to arrive at new (a posteriori)
estimates of propositional support. This process is both conceptually
and procedurally different from those undertaken when several bodies
of evidence are combined (e.g. using the Dempster Combination Rule).

The role of conditional evidence constraints (henceforth called
approximate or uncertain rules) is examined from the viewpoint of both
the theory of interval probabilities and the Dempster-Shafer Calculus
of Evidence. These approaches to the representation and analysis of
uncertain information will be briefly described together with their
theoretical underpinnings. Several possible interpretations of
approximate rules will be discussed and compared. Possible approaches
for the automation of approximate deduction (under each
interpretation) will also be presented.

Time permitting, the role of these results in the generalization of
Reynold's approach to the generation of support and elementary mass
measures will also be discussed.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 86 17:25 EST
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - Refutation Method for Horn Clauses with Equality (UPenn)

Forwarded From: Dale Miller <Dale@UPenn> on Mon 24 Feb 1986 at 17:08


                       UPenn Math-CS Logic Seminar
   A Refutation Method for Horn Clauses with Equality using E-unification
                   Jean H. Gallier (with Stan Raatz)

           Tuesday, 25 February 1986, 4:30 - 6:00, 4E17 DRL

A refutation method for equational Horn clauses, Horn clauses with or
without equational atoms, is investigated. This method combines standard
SLD-resolution and unification modulo equations.  In the case of ground Horn
clauses, unsatisfiability of a set of Horn clauses with equality is
decidable in time O(nlog(n)).  In the general case however, even though the
refutation method itself is complete, unification modulo equations is
undecidable.  In fact, unification modulo equations is NP-complete even in
the case of ground equations.  Considering this point, we explore subcases
of equational Horn clauses for which unification modulo equations is
tractable, and consider the implications for logic programming.  Finally, we
compare this new method with other existing methods.

** Next week: G. Rosolini from CMU will speak on "Categories for Partial
Computations".

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 86 23:02:40 pst
From: David Cheriton <cheriton@su-pescadero.arpa>
Subject: Seminar - Persistent Memory (SU)

          PERSISTENT OBJECT SYSTEM FOR SYMBOLIC COMPUTERS
               Satishe Thatte
               Texas Instruments
               Thurs. Feb 27th at 4:15 pm.
               MJH 352
               (Part of Distributed Systems Group Project meeting)

The advent of automatically managed, garbage-collected virtual memory
was crucial to the development of today's symbolic processing.  No
analogous capability has yet been developed in the domain of
"persistent" objects managed by a file system or database.  As a
consequence, the programmer is forced to flatten rich structures of
objects resident in virtual memory before the objects can be stored in a
file system or conventional database.  This task puts a great burden on
the programmer and adversely affects system performance.

A persistent object system that extends the automatic storage management
concepts of a symbolic computer to the domain of persistent objects will
be presented.  The system supports long-term, reliable retention of
richly structured objects in virtual memory itself, without resorting to
a file system.  Therefore, the system requires a crash recovery scheme
at the level of virtual memory.

The persistent object system is based on a uniform memory abstraction,
which eliminates the distinction between transient objects (data
structures) and persistent objects (files and databases), and therefore,
allows the same set of powerful and flexible operations with equal
efficiency on both transient and persistent objects from a programming
language such as Lisp or Prolog, without requiring a special-purpose database
language.  It is expected that the exploitation of such a capability
will lead to significant breakthroughs in knowledge/data base
management.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 86  1016 PST
From: Bob Filman <REF@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Conference - Suggestions for AAAI-86

The deadline for workshop and panel proposals for AAAI-86 is
fast approaching.  (Officially, March 1, but we'll give a
few days grace to good ideas.)

Requests for ENGINEERING panels and workshops should be sent to:

        Tom Kehler
        Program Co-Chairman for AAAI-86
        Intellicorp
        1975 EL Camino Real West
        Mountain View, California 94040
        Kehler@USC-ECL.ARPA

Requests for SCIENTIFIC panels and workshops should be sent to:

        Stan Rosenschein
        Program Co-Chairman for AAAI-86
        SRI International
        333 Ravenswood Avenue
        Menlo Park, California 94025
        Stan@SRI-AI.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 86 15:58:56 mst
From: "Yorick Wilks <yorick@nmsu>" <yorick@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Conference - Theoretical Issues in NL Processing

TINLAP3

Third workshop on
Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing.
Las Cruces, New Mexico
January 7-9, 1987.

The workshop, supported by the Association for Computational
Linguistics, will follow the format of its predecessors at
MIT (1975), Champaign-Urbana (1978) and Nova Scotia (1985):
panels of distinguished figures in computational linguistics,
AI, and related disciplines will discuss the major topics at issue.
Preliminary registration information: Yorick Wilks, Box3CRL, NMSU, Las
Cruces, NM 88001, or CSNET:az@nmsu.

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂27-Feb-86  0523	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #37
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 27 Feb 86  05:23:28 PST
Date: Wed 26 Feb 1986 22:08-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #37
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Thursday, 27 Feb 1986      Volume 4 : Issue 37

Today's Topics:
  Queries - Reviewers for Expert Systems in Government &
    Civil Engineering CAD/CAE/Expert Systems &
    Theorem Provers & Knowledge Representation Translation &
    Rete Algorithm & Lisp for the PRIME & Dec AI VaxStation &
    ICAI & Visual Programming Languages & Associative Memory &
    Prolog Books

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Feb 86 10:26:56 -0500
From: Duke Briscoe <duke@mitre.ARPA>
Subject: Reviewers for ESIG papers

Volunteers are needed to act as reviewers for the Second Expert Systems
in Government Conference, which will be held from Oct. 20-24, 1986.
The topics of the conference are knowledge based applications and
supporting technologies.  A full description of the conference was given
in the Vol. 3 Issue 186 AIList, on December 15.  If you wish to be a
reviewer, please identify your interests and send your name, address, and
phone number to karna@mitre or use US mail to

Dr. Kamal N. Karna
AI Center
The Mitre Corporation
1820 Dolley Madison Blvd.
McLean, VA  22102

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 86 07:59:56 EST
From: Mary.Lou.Maher@CIVE.RI.CMU.EDU
Subject: civil engineering exert systems

I am preparing a report for the ASCE and US Army Corp on the use of expert
system techniques in civil engineering. I would appreciate a response from
anyone active in this area; all those who respond will be put on a mailing
list to receive the completed report. Some specific civil engineering
domains are: structural engineering, geotechnical engineering, construction
engineering, transportation engineering, and environmental engineering.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 86 17:28:45 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!gitpyr!allen
      @ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Looking for publication

I am trying to locate a source for a publication referenced as
"Knowledge Engineering in Computer-Aided Design", IFIP, Sep-1984
I would also be interested in any work going on in the area of expert
systems in the field of Civil Engineering Computer Aided Engineering.
In particular, I would be interested in learing more about work
going on at Carnegi-Mellon on KADBASE. (H.C. Howard, D.R. Rehak, are
you out there ?)
--
        "It's quite easy, if you don't know how.
         That's the important bit.  Be not at all
         sure how you're doing it."
                                      -Arthur Dent
P. Allen Jensen
Manager, Systems Division
GTICES Systems Laboratory
Department of Civil Engineering
Georgia Insitute of Technology
Atlanta Georgia, 30332-0355
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,masscomp,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!allen

------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 86 18:59:40 GMT
From: ihnp4!stolaf!mmm!umn-cs!hyper!mark@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Mendel)
Subject: WANTED: Theorem Provers

I would like to get my hands on a PD or otherwise free theorem prover.
Anything from resolution to Boyer-Moore would be OK.  Lisp preferable, though
C would be OK.
Please respond via mail.
Also, I think that such a thing really should be in the mod.sources archive.
So if you offer me something you've written, please indicate whether it's OK if
I submit it.
Thanks in advance,
        Mark G. Mendel
        {ihnp4,umn-cs}!hyper!mark

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 86 10:08 EST
From: Kurt Godden <godden%gmr.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Knowledge Representation and Translation

Could anyone send to me or post to the net references on conversion of
knowledge from one representational structure to another?  For example,
translating between frames and semantic nets would be of interest.  If not
directly related to explicit translation, articles discussing >formal<
(non-)equivalence between/among various representations of knowledge is
also of interest.  If there are no postings directly to the net, I will
summarize and post anything of general interest I may receive.

-Kurt Godden
godden.gmr@csnet-relay (or, if that doesn't work: godden%gmr@csnet-relay)

------------------------------

Date: Wed 26 Feb 86 17:02:38-PST
From: Matt Heffron <BEC.HEFFRON@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Subject: Query -- Rete Algorithm

Would someone please send me the reference(s) describing the Rete algorithm.
Also, any words of wisdom from people who have tried/succeeded in
implementing the algorithm would be appreciated.  Reply to me directly at:
        BEC.HEFFRON@USC-ECL.ARPA
or,
        Matt Heffron
        Beckman Instruments, Inc.
        2500 Harbor Blvd. MS X-11
        Fullerton, CA 92634
Thanks,
Matt Heffron

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 86 12:18:07 CST
From: Glenn Veach <veach%ukans.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Lisp for the PRIME?

I would like to make the following inquiry for a friend.

Does anyone know of any versions of LISP which will run
on the Prime 9750?  They are particularly interested in
getting a version of Common Lisp if this is possible.
Also, is there any expert systems such as OPS5 which will
run on the same machine?

Post your answers on the List or send them to me.
Thanks a lot.

glenn

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Feb 86 15:18:08 est
From: nikhil@NEWTOWNE-VARIETY.LCS.MIT.EDU (Rishiyur S. Nikhil)
Subject: Opinion on Dec AI VaxStation?


A friend of mine from India (Prof. Rajeev Sangal, Indian Institute of
Technology, Kanpur) is looking into buying Lisp machines for AI research.
Because of lack of maintenance, support etc. in India, he must rule out
Symbolics, LMI, TI, Xerox, etc.  The one exception seems to be an AI
VaxStation from DEC (DEC is represented in India).

So, he would like to obtain opinions about the DEC AI VaxStation from anyone
who has used it.  If you are/have been a user,  I would appreciate it if you
could send me your appraisal.  Reply to (ARPAnet):

                nikhil@xx.lcs.mit.edu

and I will pass it on to him. If there is interest, I can also summarize my
findings to this list.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Rishiyur Nikhil

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Feb 86 22:23:38 -0500
From: bradley@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
Subject: ICAI


        As part of the newly formed Intelligent Engineering Systems
Laboratory at MIT, I am working on (hopefully) intelligent tutoring
systems for engineering applications.  I was curious what sorts of
tutoring strategies and knowledge representation schemes other researchers
in the ICAI area are using.  If anyone would be so kind as to send a
description of what they've found works/doesn't work for the applications
they are working on, or even a sample system for me to play with, with
comentary, I would be eternally grateful.
        Also, is anyone interested in forming a mail group to discuss
ICAI issues (and not bore everyone else)?

                        -Steve Bradley


  [The mail group already exists in the form of AI-Ed@SUMEX-AIM.
  I have forwarded this message to them.  -- KIL]

------------------------------

Date: Wed 26 Feb 86 10:48:09-PST
From: Marvin Zauderer <ZAUDERER@SU-SUSHI.ARPA>
Subject: Visual Programming Languages and AI


   I'm starting some work on a visual programming language (VPL); in
particular, since I'm disappointed with the current state of software
authoring systems for educators, I'm planning to build such a system that
will run in/on top of an existing VPL.
   I'm now in the process of doing some background research, and I've
assembled a fairly large number of references on the topics of
VPLs and authoring systems.
   As you might imagine, the search space for the former topic is rather
immense, since the study of VPLs involves the study of so many
disciplines (e.g. cognitive science, AI, human-computer interaction,
programming environments, interactive graphics, visual thinking, etc.). Of
course, this is also precisely why I'm so interested in VPLs and VPL
applications.

   I'd welcome any assistance in making the search space smaller: pointers
to references or to helpful people would be much appreciated. A nice side
effect of this search is the bibliography I'm creating; I will post it if
there is sufficient interest. Also, I'd be interested in starting a
discussion about VPLs and the connection between VPLs and AI.

   As a final point, I've questioned whether or not this message belongs
in AIList, and I've decided that it does. I've reasoned that, in
building such systems, one must think about about how people think,
which is precisely the kind of thing AI researchers do. This may be a
rather flimsy justification, but I figure the worst that can happen is
an avalanche of angry mail.

   Also: one would hope that the results of this thinking would go into the
kind of authoring system I'm describing. Since this seems relevant to the
topic of AI in Education, we've had some interesting discussions about
these issues recently on the AI-ED list. I still think there may be a
number of AIList readers interested in VPLs (and the associated issues) who
do not receive AI-ED.

   Please correct/criticize me if you think a discussion of these issues does
not belong on AIList -- I don't want to clutter up the netwaves.


Cheers,

Marvin Zauderer


E-Mail: Zauderer@SU-SUSHI.ARPA
USMail: c/o IRIS-FAD
        Cypress Hall, Room E-7
        Stanford University
        Stanford, CA 94305
Telephone: (415) 497-4540
           (415) 725-3159

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 86 22:59:07 GMT
From: decvax!wanginst!ulowell!dobro@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Chet Dobro)
Subject: Associative Memory

I have a question/observation/assumption that may be totally invalid, and
I fully expect to get jumped all over about, but here it is:
One of the biggest problems AI'ers seem to be having with their machines is
one of data access. Now, a human [or other sentient life-form :-)] has a
large pool of experience (commonly refered to as a swamp) that he/she/it has
access to.
It is linked together in many obscure ways (as shown by word-association
games) so that for any given thought (or problem) there are a vast number
(ususally) of (not-necessarily) connected replies.
Thinking of that swamp as a form of data-base, does the problem then boil
down to one of finding a path-key that would let you access all of the
cross-referances quickly?
Thoughts, please?  (Hopefully constructive...)
                                                Gryphon

------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 86 14:21:00 EST
From: "INFO1::ELDER" <elder@info1.decnet>
Reply-to: "INFO1::ELDER" <elder@info1.decnet>
Subject: Prolog Books

Thanks.

P.S.  If you reply to me, please drop off the '.DECNET' that may appear
in the header of my message.  Our mailer has been acting funny lately.
My address is ELDER@WPAFB-INFO1 and not ELDER@WPAFB-INFO1.DECNET.

Greg Elder

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂27-Feb-86  0923	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #38
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 27 Feb 86  09:23:11 PST
Date: Wed 26 Feb 1986 22:35-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #38
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Thursday, 27 Feb 1986      Volume 4 : Issue 38

Today's Topics:
  Query - Prolog Books,
  AI Tools - Pointer to Logo & Arity/Prolog 4.0,
  Binding - Ross Quinlan,
  Humor - "Real" Story Behind MRS's Name & NL Dialogue System,
  Comment - TI's Progress (SI Interactions Review),
  Cognitive Psychology - Knowledge Structures,
  Expert Systems - Software Engineering,
  Knowledge Representation - The Community Authoring Project

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 86 14:21:00 EST
From: elder@WPAFB-INFO1.ARPA
Subject: Prolog Books

Could someone recommend a good list of books about Prolog (besides
"Programming in Prolog" by Clocksin) which would be good for someone
to read who is justing learning the language?

Greg Elder

  [This message was accidentally truncated in the last digest due to
  the lack of a blank line following the header.  -- KIL]

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 86 14:02:04 GMT
From: rochester!ritcv!rocksvax!rocksanne!sunybcs!ellie!rapaport@seismo
      (William J. Rapaport)
Subject: Re: Re: Pointers to Logo?

>
> >> The only "texts" on Logo which I have thus far been able to locate
> >> are of the "How to Teach Logo to Your First Grade Class" variety.
> >> --
> >>    Michael J. Hartsough

        Try Brian Harvey, COMPUTER SCIENCE LOGO STYLE,
        a series of 3 books, 2 of which have appeared, published
        by MIT Press (isbn for the first, called "Intermediate
        Programming" is 0-262-58072-1).

--
                                William J. Rapaport
                                Assistant Professor
Dept. of Computer Science, SUNY Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260
(716) 636-3193, 3180
uucp:   ...{allegra,decvax,watmath}!sunybcs!rapaport
        ...{cmcl2,hao,harpo}!seismo!rochester!rocksvax!sunybcs!rapaport
cs:     rapaport@buffalo
arpa:   rapaport%buffalo@csnet-relay
bitnet: rapaport@sunybcs

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 86 06:59:44 GMT
From: sdcsvax!noscvax!ogasawar@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Todd H. Ogasawara)
Subject: Arity/Prolog 4.0 users out there?

I just received the Arity/Prolog 4.0 update to their interpreter and
compiler for the IBM PC a little while ago and have found this
implementation to be ever better and faster than the last (which was
very good).
Would be very interested to know if other netlanders are using
Arity/Prolog and, if so, what you are doing with it.
...todd
Todd Ogasawara, Computer Sciences Corp.
NOSC-Hawaii Laboratories
UUCPmail: {akgua,allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!noscvax!ogasawar
MILNET:   OGASAWAR@NOSC

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 86 16:02:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!mozetic@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Binding - Ross Quinlan

Re: Need source of ID3 for Machine Learning

Quinlan's adress is:
Ross Quinlan,
Head, School of Computing Science,
New South Wales Institute of Technology,
P.O. Box 123,
Broadway, 2007 New South Wales,
Australia

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 25 Feb 86 14:24:03 est
From: Russell Greiner <greiner%utai%toronto.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: "Real" Story behind MRS's name

  > Date: Tue, 4 Feb 86 15:46:28 EST
  > From: munnari!goanna.oz!wjb@seismo.CSS.GOV (Warwick Bolam)
  > Subject: Correction to correction to name of MRS
  >
  > Is there anyone who REALLY knows what MRS stands for?  I have a number of
  > MRS documents and NONE of them says "MRS stand for ..."

Years ago, Mike genesereth, Russ greiner and dave Smith got together,
along with some other illustrious researchers, and decided to create
a new and better representation language.  To achieve our original
objective of modifiability, the

        Modifiable Representation System

was born.  When we noticed that the only thing truly modifiable about it
was its name, it was rechristened the

        Meta-level Representation System.

As this, too, seemed a bit misleading, we considered several other
names.  Soon, we were forced to realize that we had an inherently

        Misnamed Representation System,

which still seems its best name.  (Of course, if this name really is
appropriate then it is, in fact, inappropriate.  That, in turn, means
it is not misnamed, which means it is misnamed, which ...)


[Apology: The story above is basically correct; only the names have
 been changed ...]


Russ Greiner
University of Toronto
(formerly of Stanford University).

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 86 20:59:21 GMT
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
       (michael maxwell)
Subject: Re: Dialogue help please needed ?

In article <720@aimmi.UUCP> c/o george@aimmi.UUCP (George Weir) writes:
>...  if you have a system working which
>manages dialogue in of course natural langauge (complete with efficient
>interpreter/complier), and its able to cope with all known syntactic forms,
>as well as most semantics, please send me a copy...

My wife and I are currently working on such a system.  The project name is
"SCOTT", which stands for "Self COmmunicating ToT."  Our project has been
underway for just over three years now, not counting a nine month prototyping
period.  Unfortunately, we are unable to post to the network...
Additionally, there are a few bugs, such as inappropriate case marking ("My
wanna go to the truck store!"), incorrect placement of negation ("My no wanna
go to sleep!"), "syllabic" metathesis ("You got for to buy me candy" = "You
←forgot← to..."), etc.  We regard these as trivial problems, since the
problems which linguists acknowledge to be truly difficult (e.g. the semantics
of nonexistent entities, such as imaginary people that cause the breakage/
disappearance of objects, and such pragmatic issues as proper attachment of PPs
and extraposed relative clauses) appear to be well on the way to resolution.
We would also like to report that it has been great fun...
--
Mike Maxwell
Boeing Artificial Intelligence Center
        ...uw-beaver!uw-june!bcsaic!michaelm

------------------------------

Date: Mon 24 Feb 86 09:20:59-PST
From: Tom Garvey <Garvey@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Review - SI Interactions, 2/86

It sounds as if TI for all their investment in AI, has made progress
toward the partial solution of two problems.  Since this is about the
average number of examples required for receiving a Ph.D. in AI, they
seem to have partially fulfilled the requirements.

Clearly, expertise in AI marketing is what students should be striving
for today -- the state-of-the-art of the technology itself is of (at
best) secondary importance.

Cheers,
Tom

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 86 12:30:41 pst
From: decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!pamp
      @ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Cognitive Psychology - Knowledge Structures

In article <8602100723.AA28871@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> you write:
>From:     THOMPSON%umass-cs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
>
>         I am  looking  for information about the knowledge structure
>         differences of people who have different levels of expertise
>         in  a  subject.  For  example, what is the difference in the
>         knowledge  structure of an "apprentice", a "journeyman",or a
>         "master".
>
>                                       Roger Thompson
>                                       Thompson@UMASS

One that I can recommend right off hand is -

        Kolodner,Janet L.,1984,Towards an understanding of the role of
                experience in the evolution from novice to expert:
                in Developments in expert systems;M.J.Coombs,ed.;
                Academic Press,p.95-116.

You might also look into Schank's work

        Schank,R.C.,1982, Dynamic Memory:A thoery of learning in
                people and computers; Cambridge University Press,
                Cambridge.

P.M.Pincha-Wagener

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 23 Feb 86 18:00:35 est
From: Valerie Kierulf <ulysses!mcnc!unc!kierulfv@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Expert Systems and Software Engineering

Jeg kan ikke hjelpe deg, men etter det som jeg ser, leser og hoerer, har
folkne som driver paa med AI aldri hoert noe om Software Engineering!
Jeg ville vaere veldig glad aa hoere av det motsatte !!!!

Translation: I cannot help you. But after all I see, read and hear, people
             that have to do with AI don't know about the existence of Software
             Engineering. I would be very glad to hear the opposite !!!!!!


Valerie Kierulf

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 86 18:12:28 est
From: Rob Jacob <jacob@nrl-mms.ARPA>
Subject: Expert Systems and Software Engineering

Saw your message about software engineering for expert systems on the
AIList...glad you asked.

Here at the Naval Research Laboratory Judy Froscher and I are trying to
work on just this problem.  We are interested in how rule-based systems
can be built so that they will be easier to change.  Our basic solution
is to divide the set of rules up into pieces and limit the connectivity
of the pieces.

I, too, would be very interested to hear about any other work in this
area.  When we describe our work to people, we often hear "That is just
what we need...why isn't somebody working on this?"  But we do not often
hear about other people actually working on this problem.  Two you might
try are Gregg Vesonder at Bell Labs and Steve Fickas at University of
Oregon.

I'm going to attach a short abstract about our work to the end of this
message and some references.

Good luck,
Rob Jacob

ARPA:   jacob@nrl-css
UUCP:   ...!decvax!nrl-css!jacob
SNAIL:  Code 7590, Naval Research Lab, Washington, D.C. 20375



    Developing a Software Engineering Methodology for Rule-based Systems

                            Robert J.K. Jacob
                           Judith N. Froscher

                        Naval Research Laboratory
                            Washington, D.C.

Current expert systems are typically difficult to change once they are built.
The objective of this research is to develop a design methodology that will
make a knowledge-based system easier to change, particularly by people other
than its original developer.  The basic approach for solving this problem is
to divide the information in a knowledge base and attempt to reduce the
amount of information that each single programmer must understand before he
can make a change to the expert system.  We thus divide the domain knowledge
in an expert system into groups and then attempt to limit carefully and
specify formally the flow of information between these groups, in order to
localize the effects of typical changes within the groups.

By studying the connectivity of rules and facts in several typical rule-based
expert systems, we found that they seem to have a latent structure, which can
be used to support this approach.  We have developed a methodology based on
dividing the rules into groups and concentrating attention on those facts
that carry information between rules in different groups.  We have also
studied several algorithms for grouping the rules automatically and for
measuring coupling and cohesion of alternate rule groupings in a knowledge
base.


                               REFERENCES

J.N. Froscher and R.J.K. Jacob, "Designing Expert Systems for Ease of
Change," Proc. IEEE Symposium on Expert Systems in Government, Washington,
D.C., pp. 246-251, 1985.

R.J.K. Jacob and J.N. Froscher, "Developing a Software Engineering
Methodology for Rule-based Systems," 1985 Conference on Intelligent Systems
and Machines, Oakland University, 1985.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 86 15:45:31 pst
From: Bruce McHenry <bruce@sri-tsc.ARPA>
Subject: The Community Authoring Project

       [Forwarded from the AI-Ed distribution by Laws@SRI-AI.]


A New R&D Program: The Community Authoring Project (CAP)

        The goal of the CAP is to provide a system which a large number
of people can use to create and store a complex body of knowledge.
Such a body, because it is authored and edited by many people, will
address a wide variety of individual perspectives.  Individuals will be
guided through this body with the help of user agents.  The user agents
will correspond with "idea" agents which monitor the formation of
communities.  While this approach applies to information and management
systems in general, the CAP aims to develop prototypes which can be
used in leading universities over the next few years.  Such
universities will posess advanced workstations upon which CAP software
may run.  The resulting community information system should provide
immediate benefits to teachers and students who may use it to create,
either alone or in conference, multimedia (visual & aural) "sections".
Sections may be embedded in eachother and interactively created,
explored and manipulated.  CAP technology will enable communities to
create broadbased bodies of knowledge in ways such that the
individual's "question in mind" can be readily addressed.  The testbed
sites will also provide attractive cultures for research into AI (i.e.
knowledge based, natural language and self-organizing) systems.  However,
the CAP's design philosophy is based on a pragmatic view of common
human methods for locating and disseminating information.  Its basis in
community participation provides a radical departure from current
methods of authoring interactive materials and it is expected that the
CAP will dramatically influence the development of interactive media
such as digital compact discs.


Bruce McHenry

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂27-Feb-86  1407	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #39
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 27 Feb 86  14:03:34 PST
Date: Thu 27 Feb 1986 09:50-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #39
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Thursday, 27 Feb 1986      Volume 4 : Issue 39

Today's Topics:
  Seminars - Hierarchical Planning and Allocation (USC) &
    Cerebral Lateralization (UCB) &
    Off-Line Programming of Robots (UPenn) &
    The Limits of Calculative Rationality (SU) &
    Intelligent Concept Design Assistant (Edinburgh) &
    The Purposes of Vision (Edinburgh)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 1986 13:09-PST
From: usc-cse.usc.edu@gasser
Subject: Seminar - Hierarchical Planning and Allocation (USC)

         USC DISTRIBUTED PROBLEM SOLVING GROUP MEETING:

    Planning and Resource Allocation in Time- and Cost-Constrained
             Environments : A Hierarchical Approach

                         Norman Sadeh
                  Ph.D. Student, CS Dept., USC

             Wednesday, 3/5/86, 3:00 - 4:00 PM

                          Seaver 319

Real-life planners should be provided with an ability to allocate resources
in time and cost constrained environments. A flexible manufacturing system
is an example of such an environment.

We will describe a hierarchical approach to the problem of allocating
resources during the planning process. We believe that the concept of
resource is directly related to the level of detail of the plan.  A same
object can be considered as a resource at a higher level of abstraction
and as a common object at a lower level. By allowing the planner to decide
upon which particular instances of certain  high level resources to allocate
to some high level tasks, taking into account time and cost constaints
posted on the overall plan, we will drastically reduce the search space to
be investigated.

Both centralized and distributed approaches will be considered.

Questions: Dr. Les Gasser, CS Dept., USC (213) 743-7794 or

            Norman Sadeh: sadeh@usc-cse.usc.edu

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Feb 86 15:54:31 PST
From: admin%cogsci@BERKELEY.EDU (Cognitive Science Program)
Subject: Seminar - Cerebral Lateralization (UCB)

                     BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                    Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237B
                       Tuesday, March 4, 11:00 - 12:30
                              2515 Tolman Hall
                          Discussion: 12:30 - 1:30
                          3105 Tolman (Beach Room)

            ``COGNITIVE MODELS OF HUMAN CEREBRAL LATERALIZATION:
                             A TUTORIAL REVIEW''

                              Curtis Hardyck

              Department of Psychology and School of Education,
                    University of California at Berkeley

            Models of human  cerebral  functioning  have  ranged  from
       notions  of extreme anatomical specificity to beliefs in global
       functioning.
            Within the field of cerebral lateralization, opinions have
       ranged  from  positions favoring extreme lateralization (almost
       all functions localized in one hemisphere) to  bilateralization
       (almost  all functions existing in both hemispheres). Intermin-
       gled with these positions have been promulgations of hemispher-
       icity  as  polar opposites, e.g. right brain (creative insight-
       fulness) vs left brain (lackluster drudgery), which  have  been
       adopted into popular culture.
            I will provide a brief historical review of  this  problem
       and  a discussion of current cognitive models of lateralization
       appropriate for examination within a cognitive  science  frame-
       work.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Feb 86 12:40 EST
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - Off-Line Programming of Robots (UPenn)


                                Colloquium
                      3pm Thursday, February 27, 1986
               216 Moore School, University of Pennsylvania


               TOPICS IN THE OFF-LINE PROGRAMMING OF ROBOTS
                              Vincent Hayward
           Computer Vision and Robotics Lab., McGill University

Programming  robots  is  a  difficult  task,  even  in the case of the simplest
applications.  For this reason, research in robot programming has been evolving
in two distinct directions.  The first one is aimed at constructing goal driven
automated robot programming systems.  Another  trend  is  to  design  so-called
off-line  programming  systems  to  ease  the work of a human robot programmer.
These systems include a set of programming aids  such  as  graphic  facilities,
reporting  of  performances,  interfaces  to CAD/CAM systems, and pleasant user
interfaces.  In the view of developing off-line  programming  systems,  I  will
first  present  solutions to the problem of collision detection.  These methods
belong to  a  continuum  of  schemes  according  to  the  method  selected  for
representing  the  workspace  and  the  robot,  and  the amount of computations
performed before testing a particular trajectory.  I will then discuss a method
based  on  a  recursive  decomposition of the workspace, also referred to as an
octree model, as a good tradeoff for a class of  applications.    I  will  then
present  a  project  currently underway aimed at the construction of CAD models
from range data which will also facilitate the programming of robots.  Finally,
I will discuss the adequacy of current robot programming primitives and propose
a new scheme based on how sensors interact with robot control systems.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 86  1534 PST
From: Matthew Ginsberg <SJG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - The Limits of Calculative Rationality (SU)


In light of what I expect will be department-wide interest in the
following talk, this week's research meeting/seminar of the KSL will
instead be a department-wide event.

The talk will run from 12.05 until 1.00 on February 28 and will be held
in the Chemistry Gazebo.  The room is fairly small, so anyone interested
in attending would be well advised to arrive early.

                                                Matt Ginsberg



        FROM SOCRATES TO EXPERT SYSTEMS:  THE LIMITS OF
                    CALCULATIVE RATIONALITY

                             BY

                        Hubert L. Dreyfus
                     University of California
                            Berkeley


An examination of the general epistemological assumptions behind
Artificial Intelligence research with special reference to recent
work in the development of expert systems.  All AI work assumes that
knowledge must be represented in the mind as symbolic descriptions.
Expert system builders further assume that expertise consists in
problem-solving and that problem-solving consists in analyzing a
situation in terms of objective features and then finding a situation-
action rule which determines what to do.

I will argue that expert system builders fail to recognize the real
character of expert intuitive understanding.  Expertise is acquired
in a five-step process:  The BEGINNER does, indeed, pick out objective
features and follow strict rules like a computer.  The ADVANCED BEGINNER,
however, responds to meaningful aspects of the situation which are
recognized as similar to prototypical cases, without similarity being
analyzed into objective features.  At the next stage, the COMPETENT
performer learns to figure out a strategy and to pay attention only
to features and aspects which are relevant to his plan.  The fourth
stage, PROFICIENCY, is achieved when the performer no longer has to
figure out his strategy but immediately sees the appropriate strategy.
Finally, the EXPERT, after many years of experience, is able to do what
works without facing a problem and without having to make any logical
calculations.  Experts presumably do this by storing many whole situations
and associated actions in memory and responding to their current situation
in terms of its overall similarity to a situation already successfully
dealt with.

On the basis of this model one can see that expert systems based
on rules extracted from experts do not capture the expert's expertise
and so cannot be expected to perform at expert level.

A review of the successes and failures of various expert systems confirms
this analysis.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 Feb 86 10:43:01 GMT
From: Gideon Sahar <gideon%edai.edinburgh.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
Subject: Seminar - Intelligent Concept Design Assistant (Edinburgh)

EDINBURGH AI SEMINARS

Date:   Wednesday, 26th February l986
Time:   2.00 p.m.
Place:  Department of Artificial Intelligence
        Seminar Room - F10
        80 South Bridge
        EDINBURGH.

Dr. K.J. MacCallum, Department of Ship & Marine Technology, University
of Strathclyde will give a seminar entitled - "An Intelligent Concept
Design Assistant".

This paper argues for the introduction of increased knowledge and
reasoning capabilities into computer based design systems in such a way
that they are able to enact the role of an intelligent assistant to the
designer.   It is shown that concept design involves a number of
different types of knowledge, the most difficult of which to represent
in a computer is "worldly" knowledge, either physical or commonsense.

Two systems which are being developed to tackle aspects of this
problem are described.   The first system, called DESIGNER, handles
numerical relationships;  the second called SPACES is concerned with
representing spatial arrangements.


Keyords:  Design, CAD, Knowledge Representation, Numerical
          Relationships, Spatial Arrangements.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 Feb 86 10:43:39 GMT
From: Gideon Sahar <gideon%edai.edinburgh.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
Subject: Seminar - The Purposes of Vision (Edinburgh)

EDINBURGH AI SEMINARS

Date:    Wednesday, 5th March l986
Time:    2.00 p.m.
Place:   Department of Artificial Intelligence, Seminar Room, Forrest
         Hill, Edinburgh.



Professor Aaron Sloman, School of Social Sciences, University of Sussex
will give a seminar entitled - "The Purposes of Vision and the
Architecture of a Mind".


It is often taken for granted that the purpose of vision is to take in one or
two static or changing 2-D arrays of information about the current optic field
and produce descriptions of the 3-D objects from which the light has been
reflected. This treats the visual system as having a narrowly defined set of
inputs and outputs and encourages a conception of the visual system as a
separable module in an intelligent mechanism, with relatively few channels of
communication with other modules.

The talk will reflect on the variety of visual inputs and outputs, the
possibility of integration with other senses at different levels, and how
these relate to the different purposes to which vision can be put. One
implication seems to be that the visual system may have an architecture and
relationship to other mental processes, very different from what is normally
assumed. Might we sometimes see with our ears and hear with our eyes?

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂28-Feb-86  0102	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #40
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Feb 86  01:02:00 PST
Date: Thu 27 Feb 1986 22:27-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #40
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Friday, 28 Feb 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 40

Today's Topics:
  Queries - Lisp Books & Common Lisps & International Logo Exchange,
  Knowledge Representation - Translation & Associative Memory,
  Methodology - The Community Authoring Project & AI Taxonomy,
  Literature - Scientific DataLink Index To AI Research 1954-1984

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Feb 86 12:35:22 CST
From: "Glenn O. Veach" <veach%ukans.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Lisp in the classroom.

This past year at the University of Kansas we used Scheme in two
classes.  In an undergraduate "Programming Languages" class we
went through Abelson and Sussman's book while using Scheme for
homework and class projects.  In a graduate level "Artificial
Intelligence" class we went through Kowalski's book and assigned
a project to develop a Horne clause theorem prover which some
implemented using Scheme.  We are now trying to a curriculum
for our "Introductory Programming" course in which we would use
MacScheme (we now use Pascal) and would use Abelson and Sussman
as a text (probably not the entire book).  We would hope to use
the remaining chapters of the text for our second semester
programming course.

We are of course encountering some resistance as we try to forge
ahead with Lisp as a basic instructional language.  I understand
that MIT uses Abelson and Sussman as the text for their first
course in programming languages.  Do they cover the entire text?
What do they use for more advanced programming language courses?
Do any other schools have a similar curriculum?  Has anyone
been involved with the review process of ACM or IEEE for CS or
ECE programs and suggested the use of Lisp as a basic language?
What are some of the more compelling arguments for and against
such an effort?  If anyone could direct me to any B-Boards on
ARPA net which would be interested in such a discussion I would
appreciate it.

Glenn O. Veach
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
Department of Computer Science
University of Kansas
Lawrence, KS 66045-2192
(913) 864-4482
veach%ukans.csnet@csnet-relay

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 Feb 86 16:44:28 est
From: nikhil@NEWTOWNE-VARIETY.LCS.MIT.EDU (Rishiyur S. Nikhil)
Subject: Public domain Common Lisps?


Prof. Rajeev Sangal of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, is looking
for implementations of Common Lisp in the public domain, running on any of
these machines:

   Dec-10 running Tops-10
   UNIX System III (with Berkeley enhancements)
   IBM PC's running MSDOS

Are there any such implementations? If you have any information/opinions,
please reply to

   nikhil@xx.lcs.mit.edu

Thanks in advance,

Rishiyur Nikhil

------------------------------

Date: 27 February 1986 13:44:31 EST      THURSDAY
From: FRIENDLY%YORKVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU  ( Michael Friendly
Subject: International Logo eXchange

I am the North American field editor for a new Logo newsletter,
ILX, edited by Dennis Harper at UCSB and published by Tom Lough
of the National Logo Exchange, PO Box 5341, Charlottesville, VA
22905.

I write a bi-monthly column on Logo-like educational computing,
and am interested in hearing from people who are doing interesting
things which might be of interest to the international Logo
community. Please reply directly to FRIENDLY@YORKVM1.BITNET.
Applications of Logo to particular subject areas, advanced ideas,
list processing, metaphors for teaching Logo etc are of particular
interest.

I am also interested in developing a network forum for Logo workers,
perhaps going thru AI-ED or perhaps separate from it, and would
appreciate hearing from anyone of other nets, Bboards or conferences
in this area.

My background:
  I am a cognitive psychologist doing work on knowledge structure
and memory organization, with interests toward the applied side,
and am developing empirical techniques for cognitive mapping --
graphic portrayal of an individual's knowledge for some domain.

I have written a book on Advanced Logo with applications in
AI, computational linguistics, mathematics, physics, etc. oriented
toward courses in Computer Applications in Psychology and as an
advanced Logo book in a Faculty of Education. It is due to appear
sometime in 86.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 86 09:38:30 est
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher@MIT-HTVAX.ARPA>
Subject: Knowledge Representation and Translation

   Could anyone send to me or post to the net references on conversion of
   knowledge from one representational structure to another?  For example,
   translating between frames and semantic nets would be of interest.

Well, here's a couple of obvious ones that you probably already know about:

* Brachman, R.J.  On the Epistemological Status of Semantic Networks.
* Etherington, D.W. and R. Reiter.  On Inheritance Hierarchies with Exceptions.
* Hayes, P.J.  The Logic of Frames.

These can be found in Brachman & Levesque's `Readings in Knowledge
Representation', Morgan Kaufman 1985.  Actually as I look through the
TOC, I realize that you probably should just get the book if you don't
have it.  Lots of good stuff.  Has an extensive partially annotated
bibliography too.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 86 10:11:11 est
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher@MIT-HTVAX.ARPA>
Subject: Associative Memory

   Date: 24 Feb 86 22:59:07 GMT
   One of the biggest problems AI'ers seem to be having with their machines is
   one of data access. Now, a human [or other sentient life-form :-)] has a
   large pool of experience (commonly refered to as a swamp) that he/she/it has
   access to.
   It is linked together in many obscure ways (as shown by word-association
   games) so that for any given thought (or problem) there are a vast number
   (usually) of (not-necessarily) connected replies.
   Thinking of that swamp as a form of data-base, does the problem then boil
   down to one of finding a path-key that would let you access all of the
   cross-referances quickly?

It's not invalid but unfortunately it isn't new either.  See any paper
on Frames.  The power of a frame-organized database isn't that there
happen to be these defstructs called frames, it's in the fact that the
frames are all connected together -- it's indexing by relatedness (how
dense the connections have to be before you start to win is an open
question, but see Lenat's recent stuff on CYC in the recent issue of
AI Magazine).  For background see Minsky (A Framework For Representing
Knowledge, 1975).  See NETL (e.g.  Fahlman, Representing Real-world
Knowledge, circa 1979, MIT Press).  See Connection Machine literature
(e.g.  The Connection Machine, Hillis, 1985, MIT press).  If you want
to see the connection between AI KB's and traditional DBMS's covered
extensively, see `Proceedings of the Islamorada Workshop on Large
Scale Knowledge Base and Reasoning Systems' (Feb 85) chaired by
Michael Brodie, available (I think) from Computer Corporation of
America, Cambridge MA (617) 492-8860.

------------------------------

Date: Thu 27 Feb 86 13:33:56-PST
From: Tom Garvey <Garvey@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Re: The Community Authoring Project


While I would certainly not want to be viewed as a stifler of creative
urges, sometimes it seems that a little common-sense, reality,
engineering knowledge, ..., injected into our blue-skying would go a
long way toward setting feasible goals.  What makes CAP (to which any
yahoo could presumably add his personal view of the world) anything
more than, say, a multimedia extension of this BBOARD?

Cheers,
Tom

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 86 11:51 EST
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: AI Taxonomy

When Dave Waltz was overseeing the AI section of CACM, he developed
a rather extensive taxomomy of AI.  I recall seeing it published
in AAAI magazine or SIGART or a similar source about 2 or 3 years ago.

  [I believe that he developed it for Scientific Datalink and then
  published it in AI Magazine.  See the following message.  -- KIL]

------------------------------

Date: Fri 21 Feb 86 09:42:28-PST
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Scientific DataLink Index To AI Research 1954-1984

         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


We have just added the four volume set of the Scientific DataLink Index To
Artificial Intelligence Research 1954-1984.  The four volumes including two
abstract volumes, a subject volume, and an author index, are shelved with
the serial indexes.  These volumes index the Scientific DataLink microfiche
collections for the following research institutions in AI: Bolt Beranek
and Newman, CMU, University of Illinois, ISI, University of Massachusetts,
MIT, University of Pennsylvania, University of Rochester, Rutgers, SRI,
Stanford AI and HPP, University of Texas Austin, Xerox Parc, and Yale.
The subject volume is based on the AI classification as published in AI
Magazine Spring 1985.  I have included a photocopy of that article in
the back of the subject volume.

ACM is almost up-to-date with its ACM Guide To Computing Literature an
annual index to the computer science literature.  We have received up to
1984 and the 1985 volume is expected to be out this summer.  ACM expects
to have future annual volumes out by the summer of the following year
covered by the volume.  This annual index not only includes all entries
from Computing Reviews Index but additional computer science articles
not included in the monthly Computing Reviews.  Monographs, proceedings,
and journal articles are included in the index.

Harry Llull

------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 86 17:09:00 GMT
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!orstcs!tgd@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (tgd)
Subject: Re: taxonomizing in AI: useless, harmful

Taxonomic reasoning is a weak, but important form of plausible reasoning.
It makes no difference whether it is applied to man-made or naturally
occurring phenomena.  The debate on the status of artificial intelligence
programs (and methods) as objects for empirical study has been going on
since the field began.  I assume you are familiar with the arguments put
forth by Simon in his book Sciences of the Artificial.  Consider the case of
the steam engine and the rise of thermodynamics.  After many failed attempts
to improve the efficiency of the steam engine, people began to look for
an explanation, and the result is one of the deepest theories of modern
science.
I hope that a similar process is occurring in artificial intelligence.  By
analyzing our failures and successes, we can attempt to find a deeper theory
that explains them.  The efforts by Michalski and others (including myself)
to develop a taxonomy of machine learning programs is viewed by me, at
least, not as an end in itself, but as a first step toward understanding the
machine learning problem at a deeper level.
Tom Dietterich
Department of Computer Science
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331
dietterich@oregon-state.csnet

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂28-Feb-86  1313	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #41
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Feb 86  13:10:10 PST
Date: Fri 28 Feb 1986 09:23-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #41
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Friday, 28 Feb 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 41

Today's Topics:
  Query - CERES and CASCADE Projects,
  Literature - Prolog Books & Lisp & Dreyfus on Skill Acquisition,
  Philosophy - The Dreyfus Controversy

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 86 20:07:41 GMT
From: hplabs!turtlevax!weitek!kens@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ken Stanley)
Subject: Request for info on CERES and/or the CASCADE project

Can anyone tell me anything about CERES, POLO, LASCAR or the CASCADE project?
Is the CASCADE project state of the art or just an effort to catch up
to work in the U.S.?
I know nothing about any of the above.  Hence, simple responses and
references would be the most helpful.
Ken Stanley     weitek!kens

------------------------------

Date: 28-Feb-1986 0843
From: kevin%logic.DEC@decwrl.DEC.COM  (Kevin LaRue -- You can hack
      anything you want with TECO and DDT)
Subject: Re:  Prolog Books


``Introduction to Logic Programming''
Christopher John Hogger
Academic Press, Inc.
1984
ISBN 0-12-352092-4

------------------------------

Date: 28-Feb-1986 1129
From: kevin%logic.DEC@decwrl.DEC.COM  (Kevin LaRue -- You can hack
      anything you want with TECO and DDT)
Subject: Re:  Lisp in the classroom.


Lisp is the language used in the undergraduate introductory course of the CS
curriculum at Syracuse University.  In the past there wasn't a textbook for the
course; I believe that they are using Winston and Horn's ``Lisp'' now.

------------------------------

Date: Thu 27 Feb 86 23:34:38-PST
From: Sang K. Cha <ChaSK@SU-SUSHI.ARPA>
Subject: Dreyfus on Skill Acquisition

         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


[...]

Actually, the five-stage developmental model of skill acquisition that
Hubert Dreyfus stressed in his talk abstract appears in the following
paper of Stuart Dreyfus :

"Formal Models vs Human Situational Understanding : Inherent Limitations
 on the Modelling of Business Expertise,"
 Office Technology and People,1(1982) 133-165
 by Stuart Dreyfus, Dept of IE & OR, UC Berkeley


-- Sang

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 86 23:45:53 GMT
From: decwrl!glacier!kestrel!ladkin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Peter Ladkin)
Subject: Re: Re: "self-styled philosophers"

(ladkin on Dreyfus)
> > He is also a professional philosopher, holding a chair at
> > U.C. Berkeley. His criticisms of AI claims are thoroughly thought
> > through, with a rigor that a potential critic of his views would
> > do well to emulate. He has done AI great service by forcing
> > practitioners to be more self-critical. AAAI should award him
> > distinguished membership!

(benjamin)
> Baloney.
> [comments on Dreyfus on chess .....]
> It seems arrogant
> for him to reach conclusions about fields in which he is not
> accomplished. This applies to both chess and AI.

Before you cry *baloney*, how about addressing the issue?
As I pointed out, but you deleted, his major argument is that
there are some areas of human experience related to intelligence
which do not appear amenable to machine mimicry.
Do you (or anyone) think that this statement is obviously false?
(Negate it and see if that sounds right).
People reach (good and bad) conclusions about fields in which
they are not accomplished all the time. That's how AI got started,
and that's how computers got invented.
Why is it that people get so heated about criticism of AI that
they stoop to name-calling rather than addressing the points made?
(That question has probably also been asked by Dreyfus).

Peter Ladkin

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 86 04:27:50 GMT
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!uw-june!jon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jon Jacky)
Subject: Re: Technology Review article

> (Technology Review cover says...)
> After 25 years Artificial Intelligence has failed to live up to its promise
> and there is no evidence that it ever will.

Most of the comment in this newsgroup has addressed the second clause in
this provocative statement.  I think the first clause is more important, and
it is indisputable.  The value of the Dreyfuss brothers' article is to
remind readers that when AI advocates make specific predictions, they are
often over-optimistic.  Personally, I do not find all of the Dreyfuss'
speculations convincing.  So what?  AI work does not get funded
to settle philosophical arguments, but because the funders hope to derive
specific benefits.  In particular, the DARPA Strategic Computing Program,
the largest source of funds for AI work in the country,
asserts that specific technologies (rule based expert systems, parallel
processing) will deliver specific results (unmanned vehicles that can
drive at 40 km/hr through battlefields, natural language systems with
10,000 word vocabularies) at a specific time (the early 1990's).  One
lesson of the article is that people should regard such claims
skeptically.
Jonathan Jacky,         ...!ssc-vax!uw-beaver!uw-june!jon  or jon@uw-june
University of Washington

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 86 19:35:05 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihwpt!olaf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (olaf henjum)
Subject: Re: "self-styled philosophers"

Is there any other kind of "lover of wisdom" than a "self-styled" one?
   -- Olaf Henjum (ihnp4!ihwpt!olaf)
      (and, of course, my opinions are strictly my own ...)

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 86 18:26:12 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!bbnccv!bbncc5!mfidelma@ucbvax
      .berkeley.edu  (Miles Fidelman)
Subject: Re: Technology Review article

About 14 years ago Hubert Dreyfus wrote a paper titled "Why Computers Can't
Play Chess" - immediately thereafter, someone at the MIT AI lab challenged
Dreyfus to play one of the chess programs - which trounced him royally -
the output of this was an MIT AI Lab Memo titled "The Artificial Intelligence
of Hubert Dreyfus, or Why Dreyfus Can't Play Chess".
The document was hilarious. If anyone still has a copy, I'd like to arrange
a xerox of it.
Miles Fidelman (mfidelman@bbncc5.arpa)

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 86 18:28:27 GMT
From: amdcad!amdimage!prls!philabs!dpb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Paul Benjamin)
Subject: Re: Re: Re: "self-styled philosophers"

> (ladkin on Dreyfus)
> > > He is also a professional philosopher, holding a chair at
> > > U.C. Berkeley. His criticisms of AI claims are thoroughly thought
> > > through, with a rigor that a potential critic of his views would
> > > do well to emulate. He has done AI great service by forcing
> > > practitioners to be more self-critical. AAAI should award him
> > > distinguished membership!
> (benjamin)
> > Baloney.
> > [comments on Dreyfus on chess .....]
> > It seems arrogant
> > for him to reach conclusions about fields in which he is not
> > accomplished. This applies to both chess and AI.
>
> Before you cry *baloney*, how about addressing the issue?
> As I pointed out, but you deleted, his major argument is that
> there are some areas of human experience related to intelligence
> which do not appear amenable to machine mimicry.
> Do you (or anyone) think that this statement is obviously false?
> (Negate it and see if that sounds right).
>
> Why is it that people get so heated about criticism of AI that
> they stoop to name-calling rather than addressing the points made?
> (That question has probably also been asked by Dreyfus).
>
> Peter Ladkin

I DID address the issue. I deleted your reference because reproducing
entire postings leads to extremely large postings. But I am addressing
his argument about areas of human experience which supposedly will
never be amenable to machine implementation. My whole point, which I
thought was rather obvious, is that he conjures up examples which are
poorly thought out, and experiments which are poorly executed. Thus,
his entire analysis is worthless to any investigators in the field.
I would welcome any analysis which would point out areas which I should
not waste time investigating. I receive this sort of input occasionally,
in the form of "it is better to investigate this than that, for this reason"
and this is very helpful. I certainly don't love wasting time looking at
dead ends. If Dreyfus' work were carefully constructed, it could be very
valuable. But all I see when I read his stuff is vague hypotheses, backed
up with bad research.
So I am not calling him names. I am characterizing his research, and
therefore AM addressing the issue.
Paul Benjamin

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 23 Feb 86 18:21:59 PST
From: albert@kim.berkeley.edu (Anthony Albert)
Reply-to: albert@kim.berkeley.edu (Anthony Albert)
Subject: Re: Technology Review article

In article <8602110348.2860@redwood.UUCP>, ucdavis!lll-crg!amdcad!amd!hplabs!
    fortune!redwood!rpw3@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rob Warnock) writes:
>
>
>+
>| The [Technology Review] article was written by the Dreyfuss brothers, who
>| claim...  that people do not learn to ride a bike by being told how to do
>| it, but by a trial and error method that isn't represented symbolically.
>+
>
>Hmmm... Something for these guys to look at is Seymour Papert's work
>in teaching
>such skills as bicycle riding, juggling, etc. by *verbal* and *written* means.
>That's not to say that some trial-and-error practice is not needed, but that
>there is a lot more that can be done analytically than is commonly assumed.

The Dreyfuses (?) understand that learning can occur analytically and
consciously at first. But in the stages from beginner to expert, the actions
become less and less conscious. I imagine Mr. Warnock's juggling (mentioned
further on in the article) followed the same path; when practicing a skill,
one doesn't think about it constantly, one lets it blend into the background.

                                Anthony Albert
                                ..!ucbvax!kim!albert
                                albert@kim.berkeley.edu

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂04-Mar-86  0222	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #42
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 4 Mar 86  02:22:28 PST
Date: Mon  3 Mar 1986 23:50-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #42
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Tuesday, 4 Mar 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 42

Today's Topics:
  Journal Issue - Computational Linguistics on the Lexicon,
  Seminars - Representation/Estimation of Spatial Uncertainty (SRI) &
    Propositional Temporal Logic for Programs (UCB) &
    Automatic Proof of Godel's Theorem (UTexas) &
    Belief Functions in Artificial Intelligence (GMR)
  Conference - Data Engineering

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 2 Mar 86 13:08:13 est
From: walker@mouton.ARPA (Don Walker at mouton.ARPA)
Subject: Journal Issue - Computational Linguistics on the Lexicon

CALL FOR PAPERS: Special issue of Computational Linguistics on the Lexicon

Antonio Zampolli, Nicoletta Calzolari, and Don Walker have been appointed
guest editors for a special issue of Computational Linguistics on the
lexicon.  There is general agreement that the lexicon has been a
neglected area, and that current research is addressing problems of
importance for all aspects of natural language processing.  The issue is
intended to make the community at large aware of these developments.
All papers submitted will be reviewed in the usual manner.  The only
difference in procedure is that three (instead of five) copies should
be sent to James Allen (CL Editor), Department of Computer Science,
University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, USA [acl@rochester.arpa];
one copy should be sent to Antonio Zampolli (CL Lexicon), Laboratorio
di Linguistica Computazionale CNR, Via della Faggiola 32, I-56100 Pisa,
ITALY [glottolo%icnucevm.bitnet@wiscvm.arpa]; and one copy to Don Walker
(CL Lexicon), Bell Communications Research, 445 South Street, MRE
2A379, Morristown, NJ 07960, USA [walker@mouton.arpa; walker%mouton
@csnet-relay; ucbvax!bellcore!walker].  Manuscripts should be received
by 31 August.

------------------------------

Date: Thu 27 Feb 86 12:15:35-PST
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: Seminar - Representation/Estimation of Spatial Uncertainty (SRI)


         REPRESENTATION AND ESTIMATION OF SPATIAL UNCERTAINTY

                    Randy Smith (SMITH@SRI-AI)
                  Robotics Lab, SRI International

                    11:00 AM, MONDAY, March 3
       SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)


Current work on a method for geometrical reasoning under uncertainty
will be presented.  Such a reasoning component will be important to
planning systems for many robotic applications, including autonomous
navigation and industrial automation.

A general method will be described for estimating the values and
estimated errors in the relationship between objects whose locations
are represented by coordinate frames.  The elements in the
relationship may be described by bounding intervals, or may be
described by means and covariances, if a statistical model is
available.  The relationship between the frames (objects) may not be
explicitly given, but known only indirectly through a series of
spatial relationships, each with its associated error.  This
estimation method can be used to answer such questions as whether a
camera attached to a robot is likely to have a particular object in
its field of view.  More generally, this method makes it possible to
decide in advance if an uncertain relationship is known accurately
enough for some task to be accomplished, and if not, how much of an
improvement in locational knowledge a proposed sensing action will
provide.  The calculated estimates agree very well with those from an
independent Monte Carlo simulation.  The method presented can be
generalized to six degrees of freedom, and provides a practical means
of estimating the relationships (position and orientation) between
objects as well as the uncertainty associated with the relationship.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 86 13:22:12 PST
From: CALENDAR@IBM-SJ.ARPA
Subject: Seminar - Propositional Temporal Logic for Programs (UCB)

                 IBM Almaden Research Center
                        650 Harry Road
                   San Jose, CA 95120-6099

                         CALENDAR
               March 3, 1986 - March 7, 1986



Computer          EXPRESSING INTERESTING PROPERTIES OF PROGRAMS
Science           IN PROPOSITIONAL TEMPORAL LOGIC
Seminar           P. Wolper, AT&T Bell Labs and Stanford University

Tues., Mar. 4     We show that the class of properties of programs
10:30 A.M.        expressible in propositional temporal logic
B1-413            can be substantially extended if we assume
                  the programs to be data-independent.
                  Basically, a program is data-independent if its
                  behavior does not depend on the specific data it
                  operates upon.  Our results significantly extend
                  the applicability of program verification and
                  synthesis methods based on propositional
                  temporal logic.

                  Host: M. Vardi

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 86 10:53:21 CST
From: Rose M. Herring <roseh@ratliff.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: Seminar - Automatic Proof of Godel's Theorem (UTexas)


                      University of Texas
                  Computer Sciences Department

                           COLLOQUIUM

SPEAKER:                N. Shankar
                                University of Texas at Austin

TITLE:          Checking  the  Proof  of  Godel's  Incompleteness
                  Theorem with the Boyer-Moore Theorem Prover

DATE:           Thursday, March 6, 1986
PLACE:          WEL 3.502
TIME:           4:00-5:30 p.m.


        There is a widespread belief that computer proof-checking
of  significant mathematics is infeasible.  We argue against this
by presenting a machine-checked proof of  Godel's  incompleteness
theorem, one of the greatest landmarks of mathematics.  The proof
of this theorem was checked in  a  constructive  logic  with  the
Boyer-Moore theorem prover.  The proof demonstrates the essential
incompleteness of Cohen's axioms for  hereditarily  finite  sets.
This  was done by first formalizing a proof-checker for this log-
ic, extending it with derived inference rules, demonstrating  the
representability  of  a Lisp Eval function by a predicate in this
logic, and then constructing an undecidable sentence.  The state-
ment of the incompleteness theorem as proved, asserts that if the
undecidable sentence is either provable or disprovable,  then  it
is  both provable and disprovable.  This shows that the above ax-
iom system is either incomplete or inconsistent.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Mar 86 17:31 EST
From: Steve Holland <holland%gmr.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - Belief Functions in Artificial Intelligence (GMR)

Seminar at General Motors Research Laboratories, Warren, Michigan:


                 Belief Functions in Artificial Intelligence
                             Prof. Glenn Shafer
                            University of Kansas
                           Lawrence, Kansas  66045

                           Thursday, March 6, 1986

                                  ABSTRACT
     The theory of belief functions, or the Dempster-Shafer theory, has
     attracted wide interest as a tool for the management of uncertainty in
     artificial intelligence.

     What are the advantages and disadvantages of belief functions when they are
     compared with numerical alternatives such as Bayesian probability and fuzzy
     logic or with non-numerical alternatives such as default logic and the
     calculus of endorsements?  What are the current prospects for sensible use
     of belief functions in expert systems?

     In this talk, I will offer some general judgments on these questions.  I
     will emphasize the need for interactive tools for the construction of
     probability arguments, and I will speculate on long-term possibilities for
     probability judgment using man-made associateve memories.


-Steve Holland, Computer Science Department

------------------------------

Date: Thu 27 Feb 86 18:37:23-PST
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Conference - Data Engineering

DATA ENGINEERING CALL-FOR-PAPERS


The Third International Conference on Data Engineering
        Pacifica Hotel, Culver City (Los Angeles), California, USA
        February 3-5, 1987 (Tutorials 2,6 February)
        Sponsored by the IEEE Computer Society

SCOPE

Data Engineering is concerned with the role of data and knowledge
about data in the design, development, management, and utilization of
information systems.  As such, it encompasses traditional aspects of
databases, knowledge bases, and data management in general.  The
purpose of the third conference is to continue to provide a forum for
the sharing of experience, practice, and theory of automated data and
knowledge management from an engineering point-of-view.  The
effectiveness and productivity of future information systems will
depend critically on improvements in their design, organization, and
management.

We are actively soliciting industrial contributions.  We believe
that it is critically important to share practical experience.  We
look forward to reports of experiments, evaluation, and problems
in achieving the objectives of information systems.  Papers which
are identified as such will be processed, scheduled, and published
in a distinct track.


                       TOPICS OF INTEREST

  o Logical and physical database design    o Design of knowledge-based systems
  o Data management methodologies           o Architectures for data- and
  o Distribution of data and information        knowledge-based systems
  o Performance Evaluation                  o Data engineering tools
  o Expert systems applied to data          o Applications
  o Data Security

The days preceeding and following the conference will be exclusively
devoted to tutorials.
Additional mini-tutorials will be presented during the last evening
of the conference. A special DBMS vendor day will include short
DBMS-specific tutorials to acquaint attendees with current commercially
available products.  Those interested in presenting tutorials should
contact the Tutorial Chairman by May 15, 1986.


AWARDS, STUDENT PAPERS, AND SUBSEQUENT PUBLICATION:

An award will be given for the best paper at the conference.  The best
student paper will receive the K.S. Fu award, honoring one of the
early supporters of the conference.  Up to three awards of $500 each
to help defray travel costs will be given for outstanding papers
authored solely by students.  All outstanding papers will be
considered for publication in the IEEE Computer Society Computer
Magazine, the IEEE Expert Magazine, the IEEE Software, and the IEEE
Transactions on Software Engineering.  For more information, contact
the General Chairman.

PAPER SUBMISSION:                   CONFERENCE TIMETABLE:

Four copies of papers should be     Tutorial proposals due:  May 15, 1986
mailed before June 16th 1986 to:    Manuscripts due:         June 15, 1986
                                    Acceptance letters sent: September 15, 1986
Third Data Engineering Conference   Camera-ready copy due:   November 11, 1986
IEEE Computer Society               Tutorials:               February 2,6, 1987
1730 Massachusetts Ave. NW          Conference:              February 3-5, 1987
Washington DC, 20036-1903
  (202) 371-0101


Committee

Steering Committee Chairman:
C. V. Ramamoorthy
University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720

Honorary Chairman:
P. Bruce Berra
Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13210

General Chairman:
Gio Wiederhold
Dept. of Computer Science
Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
(415) 723-0685
wiederhold@sumex-aim.arpa

Program Chairman:
Benjamin W. Wah
Coordinated Science Laboratory
University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
(217) 333-5216
wah%uicsld.@uiuc.arpa

Program Co-Chairpersons:
John Carlis, Univ.of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455
Iris Kameny, SDC, Santa Monica, CA 90406
Peter Ng, Univ.of Missouri-Columbus, Columbia, MO 65211
Winston Royce, Lockheed STC, Austin, TX 78744
Joseph Urban, Univ.of SW Louisiana, Lafayette, LA 70504

International Coordination:
Tadeo Ichikawa, Hiroshima University, Higashi-Hiroshima 724, Japan
G. Schlageter, Fern Universitat, D 5800 Hagen, FR. Germany

Tutorials:
James A. Larson, Honeywell Computer Sciences Center
1000 Boone Avenue North, Golden Valley, MN 55427
(612) 541-6836
jalarson@hi-multics.arpa

Awards:
K.H. Kim, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620

Treasurer:
Aldo Castillo, TRW, Redondo Beach, CA 90278

Local Arrangements:
Walter Bond, Cal State University, Dominquez Hills, CA 90747
(213) 516-3580/3398

Mary C.~Graham, Hughes, P.O.Box 902, El Segundo, CA 90245
(213) 619-2499

Publicity:
Dick Shuey, 2338 Rosendale Rd., Schenectady, NY 12309
shuey@ge-crd.arpa

Tentative Program Committee Members

Jacob Abraham          Witold Litwin
Adarsh K. Arora        Jane W.S. Liu
J.L. Baer              Ming T. (Mike) Liu
Faroh B. Bastani       Raymond Liuzzi
Don Batory             Vincent Lum
Bharat Bhargava        Yuen-Wah Eva Ma
Joseph Boykin          Mamoru Maekawa
Richard Braegger       Gordon McCalla
Alfonso Cardenas       Toshimi Minoura
Nick Cercone           N.M. Morfuni
Peter P. Chen          Jack Mostow
Bernie Chern           Jaime Murow
Roger Cheung           Sham Navathe
David Choy             Philip M. Neches
Wesley W. Chu          Erich Neuhold
J. DeJong              G.M. Nijssen
David J. DeWitt        Ole Oren
Ramez ElMasri          G. Ozsoyoglu
Robert Epstein         Z.Meral Ozsoyoglu
Michael Evangelist     C. Parent
Domenico Ferrari       J.F. Paris
Hector Garcia-Molina   D.S. Parker
Georges Gardarin       Peter Rathmann
Sakti P. Ghosh         Lakshmi Rebbapragada
Arnold Goldfein        David Reiner
Giorgio Gottlob        Gruia-Catalin Roman
Laura Haas             Domenico Sacca
Lee Hollaar            Giovanni Maria Sacco
Yang-Chang Hong        Sharon Salveter
David K. Hsiao         Edgar Sibley
H. Ishikawa            David Spooner
Sushil Jajodia         John F. Sowa
Jie-Yong Juang         Peter M. Stocker
Arthur M. Keller       Stanley Su
Larry Kerschberg       Denji Tajima
Won Kim                Marjorie Templeton
Roger King             A.M. Tjoa
Dan Kogan              Yosihisa Udagawa
Robert R. Korfhage     Susan Urban
Tosiyasu L. Kunii      P. Valduriez
Winfried Lamersdorf    R.P. VanDeRiet
Matt LaSaine           Yann Viemont
W.-H. Francis Leung    Neil Walker
Victor Li              Helen Wood
Ya-Nan Lien            S. Bing Yao


Epilog

The correct design and implementation of data systems requires attention
to principles from databases, knowledge bases, software engineering, and
system evaluation.   We hope you will participate.

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂04-Mar-86  0435	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #43
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 4 Mar 86  04:34:57 PST
Date: Tue  4 Mar 1986 00:12-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #43
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Tuesday, 4 Mar 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 43

Today's Topics:
  Queries - Lexicons & Q&A & MAC-SCHEME &
    Distributed Problem Solving for Architectural Design &
    Chinese Language Environment on Symbolics,
  AI Tools - Lisp for 68k Unix World & Rete Algorithm,n
  Linguistics - Ambiguous Sentences

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1986 Mar 3   08:28 EST
From: Bob Weber    <WEBER3%HARVARDA.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
Subject: QUERY RE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LEXICONS

I am currently evaluating available lexicons as part of a project
to develop a NLP system with commercial potential.
I would like information concerning machine-readable lexicons
and thesauri that are not now commercial products but that are publically
or privately available. Specifically, I am interested in the
following information: (1) number of words and how they were
selected for inclusion in the lexicon, (2) how much and what
kind of syntactical information is incorporated, (3) for verbs, whether
case information is included, and if so, what kind and to what extent,
(4) whether the lexicon incorporates any class hierarchy information,
(5) references to research using the lexicon, (6) the willingness
of the owner to share or sell, and approximate price if for sale,
(7) other descriptive information necessary for evaluating the
contents of the lexicon.

Please reply directly to:  Weber3%Harvarda.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU

Thanks in advance. If the replies are sufficiently interesting,
I will repost.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 86 20:21:17 GMT
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!kodak!bayers
      @ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (mitch bayersdorfer)
Subject: Query: Q & A by Symantecs

On the IEEE telecast on February 26, 1986, there was mention of
a natural language driven database program called Q & A.  Does
anyone know of the source of this package?

      - Mitch Bayersdorfer
        Applied Technology Organization
        Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
        Floor 4, Bldg 23, Kodak Park
        Rochester, NY 14650
        (716) 477-1972
        UUCP: rochester!kodak!bayers

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 2 Mar 86 19:55:34 pst
From: Harvey Abramson <abramson%ubc.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: information on MAC-SCHEME

Does anyone have information as to the existence and availability of an
implementation of Scheme to run on the Macintosh?

------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 1986 22:15-PST
From: hinke@usc-cse.usc.edu
Subject: distributed problem solving query -- architecture

I am currently researching the application of distributed problem
solving techniques to the solution of architecture (houses and
buildings) design problems. I am especially interested in any work in
which multiple agents, possessing different design perspectives, have
been applied to a design problem, While the domain is architecture, the
intent of the research is to investigate the computer science issues
inherent in multiple problem solver design approaches. Reply can be
sent to hinke@usc-cs.

Tom Hinke

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 1986 1801-EST (Saturday)
From: Andy Chun <hon%brandeis.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Chinese Language Environment on Symbolics


We are currently developing a Chinese language environment on Symbolics Lisp
machines.  This includes a basic character set of about 7,000 characters and
a user-interface for standard Chinese character code and pinyin input.  This
environment will be used for Chinese natural language understanding research
and Chinese text-processing.

To avoid duplicating efforts, we would like to know if anyone has already
developed such an environment on a Symbolics machine.  We are also
interested in knowing other research groups who may be interested in using
such an environment.

US mail:
    Hon Wai Chun
    Computer Science Department
    Brandeis University
    Ford Hall 232A
    Waltham, MA 02254

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 Feb 86 19:48:00 pst
From: bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!oblio!paf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
      (Paul Fronberg)
Subject: Re: seeking lisp for 68k unix world

You might try SCHEME from the GNU distribution tape. I brought it up on a
5.2 box (68020) by a minor modification of the makefile. Also the price is
right considering that this includes source code ($150).

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Mar 86 10:07:13 PST
From: dual!hplabs!tektronix!tekchips!chanl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Chan Lee)
Subject: Re: Query -- Rete Algorithm

The Rete algorithm is described in detail on the article(by C. Forgy)
"Rete: A Fast Algorithm for the Many Pattern/Many Object Pattern Match
Problem", Artificial Intelligence, Vol 19, Num 1, Sep 1982.
You can find a lot of relevant papers in the reference of this paper.
Among them, McDermott, Newell and Moore's paper on the "Efficiency of certain
production system implementation" seems very helpful.

chan lee

------------------------------

Date: Thu 20 Feb 86 09:18:01-PST
From: FIRSCHEIN@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: ambiguous sentences

Here is the file of ambiguous sentences.
If you want to post any or all of it, be my guest.


From: BATES@G.BBN.COM

The all-time classic is "Time flies like an arrow", which has at least
5 ambiguous interpretations if you allow it to be the first part of
an unfinished sentence (which is how a parser would have to consider it) as
well as a complete sentence.  The interps are:
1.  The cliche we all understand the sentence to mean.
2.  An imperative, as in "Take this stopwatch and time these flies the same way
you would time an arrow in flight."
3.  An imperative, as in "Take this stopwatch and time these flies the same way
an arrow would time the flies if an arrow could use a stopwatch"
4.  "Time flies (which are like Horse Flies or Bluebottle Flies) are fond
of an arrow"
5.  "Time flies (as above), in a manner similar to an arrow, ..." (The end
of the sentence could be something like "move through the air rapidly")

There may even be another interp in there somewhere, but that's what I
remember for now.  If you get other sentences that are that heavily
ambiguous, I would very much appreciate seeing  a list of them.
  Thanks,
    Lyn Bates
    BATES@BBNG.ARPA


From: Shrager.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: multiple ambiguity

John made Jim die by swallowing his tongue.

E.g.,   John forced Jim's tongue down Jim's throat.
        John ate Jim's tongue (the rudest version).
        John swallowed his own tongue and Jim died laughing.
        John ate the cow's tongue that Jim had tainted with hot peppers
                so Jim died laughing.  It was on John's plate.
        <Same>, but it was on Jim's plate.
        The tongue belongs to some third person (referent of "his").



From:     FRAMPTON%northeastern.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA

  The following is only four ways ambiguous, but the ambiguity is purely
syntatic and the sentence isn't overly contrived.  It is a good test of
a syntatic parser.

   "I sent the man who is too stubborn to talk to Jack."

  The four readings can be deduced from:

  (1) I sent X to Jack
  (2) I sent X
  (3) I sent X to talk to Jack
  (4) I sent X Jack  (dative shift)

  Please either post the results of your inquiry on the AILIST or csnet-mail
the results to me.  I'm quite curious.


From: Stephen G. Rowley <SGR@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>

One classic example is the phrase "pretty little girls school".  One
source of ambiguity is "pretty", which could mean either "beautiful" or
"moderately".  However, most of the ambiguity comes from binding powers,
i.e., where you attach the adjectives.  J. C. Brown, in his work on
Loglan, gives 17 meanings.  Here they are, always interpreting "pretty"
as "beautiful".

P = pretty; L = little; G = Girls; S = school. The problem is how to
insert parentheses into P L G S.  (Actually, it's more complex than
that, since you can put in a connective between adjectives to
effectively make a compound sentence; see [5ff].  Also, the some
adjectives can be present in both components of the compound; see
[9ff].)

     Binding                    Meaning
     =======                    =======

[1] (((P L) G) S)           A school for girls who are small; the
                            smallness of the  girls is beautiful.  [This
                            is purely left-associative.]

[2] (P ((L G) S))           A school for girls who are small; the
                            speaker's opinion is that such schools are
                            beautiful.  [Cf. [15].]

[3] ((P L) (G S))           A school for girls; the school is small and
                            the smallness is beautiful.

[4] (P (L (G S)))           A school for girls; the school is small;
                            the speaker's opinion is that such schools
                            are beautiful.  [This is purely
                            right-associative.]

[5] ((P G) S) & ((L G) S)   A school for girls who are both beautiful
                            and small.  [Both components left-associate.
                            G is duplicated.]

[6] (P (G S)) & ((L G) S)   A school for girls; the school is pretty;
                            the girls are small.  [First component
                            right-associates, second component
                            left-associates.  G is duplicated.]

[7] ((P G) S) & (L (G S))   A school for pretty girls; the school is
                            also small.  [First componentleft-associates,
                            second component right-associates.  G is
                            duplicated.]

[8] (P (G S)) & (L (G S))   A school for girls; the school is both
                            pretty and small.  [Both components
                            right-associate.  G is duplicated.]

[9] ((P L) S) & ((P G) S)   A beautifully small school for beautiful
                            girls. [Note duplication of P; both
                            components left-associate.]

[10] (P (L S)) & ((P G) S)  A small school which is thought to be
                            pretty; also it's for pretty girls. [P
                            duplicated; association is right/left.]

[11] ((P L) S) & (P (G S))  A school which is small and whose smallness
                            the speaker considers beautiful; also a
                            school for girls which is itself pretty. [P
                            duplicated; association is left/right.]

[12] (P (L S)) & (P (G S))  A small school which is pretty; also a
                            school for girls which is pretty.  [P
                            duplicated; both components
                            right-associate.]

[13] ((P L) S) & (G S)      A school which is small and the speaker
                            considers that smallness to be beautiful;
                            also it's a school for girls.

[14] (P (L S)) & (G S)      A small school which is beautiful and which
                            is a school for girls.

[15] (P S) & ((L G) S)      A beautiful school which is for small girls.
                            [Unlike [2], the beauty of the school is
                            independent of L & G.]

[16] (P S) & (L (G S))      A pretty school which is for girls and small
                            as girls schools go.

[17] (P S) & (L S) & (G S)  A school which enjoys all 3 properties of
                            being beautiful, small, and for girls.

[There's another set of 4 sentences that Brown didn't exhibit in his
book.  They're of the same class as [5-8] and [9-12], but duplicate L
instead of P or G:

[18] ((P L) S) & ((L G) S)
[19] (P (L S)) & ((L G) S)
[20] ((P L) S) & (L (G S))
[21] (P (L S)) & (L (G S))

That brings the total to 21.  However, since we're both getting bored
with this by now, and you've undoubtedly gotten the point, we won't
analyze them!]

One of Brown's points in Loglan was that, in order to be unambiguous,
the language needs pronounceable parentheses and connectives so that the
groupings above become apparent.  Each of the 17 (or 21) above meanings
has a separate pronounciation in Loglan; you're not allowed to be vague
about binding of adjectives.  (The default is left-associativity.)

One might object that I've left out cues to understanding, such as
punctuation (commas and apostrophes) and tone of voice.  That's true;
many cues to understanding sentences like these come from lexical or
prosodic factors like that.  However, tone of voice gets lost in writing
and punctuation is lost in speaking (at least partially; consider
"girls" vs "girl's").  Therefore, coping without some of these cues is
still a valid problem.


From: mab@aids-unix (Mike Brzustowicz)

My favorite is "The technician made the robot fast."

-Mike Brzustowicz
<mab@aids-unix>


From: William Dowling <Dowling%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>

Re the recently posted question seeking multiply ambiguous
sentences:  the easiest way to make multiply ambiguous sentences
or phrases is to exploit the tree inequality X(YZ) <> (XY)Z.
For example "a book and a stapler or some tape" is doubly
ambiguous, and "a book and a stapler or some tape and a newspaper"
is 5-ways ambiguous.  The same trick makes "the man with a hat
and a monkey in pajamas" heavily ambiguous.  Of course if n1 and
n2 are noun phrases k1- and k2-ways ambiguous then "<n1> is no <n2>"
is a sentence that is k1.k2-ways ambiguous.  Bob Wall once told
me that an early automatic translation program picked up many of
the readings of "Applicants who apply for licenses wearing shorts


From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher@MIT-HTVAX.ARPA>

There's always the old standby "I saw the man on the hill with the
telescope."  This is used in Winston's textbook.  I count six meanings.


 From: John DeCarlo <M14051%mwvm@mitre.arpa>

 My favorite is:

     "Mary had a little lamb."

 It supposedly has at least a dozen meanings, most of which I can't think
 of off the top of my head, but I know it is in at least one of my textbooks.

    Mary owned                  some meat from a young sheep
         ate                    an actual live animal
         had intercourse with
         was accompanied by

 ...

 John DeCarlo
 <M14051%mwvm@mitre.arpa>

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂06-Mar-86  1244	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #44
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Mar 86  12:44:07 PST
Date: Wed  5 Mar 1986 22:32-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #44
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Thursday, 6 Mar 1986      Volume 4 : Issue 44

Today's Topics:
  Seminars - Acquiring Language & Computer Lexicon Use (SD SIGART) &
    Commonsense Knowledge in the TACITUS Project (SU) &
    Hubert Dreyfus on Being and Time (MIT) &
    Intelligent Distributed Operating Systems (USC) &
    Delegation and Inheritance (MIT) &
    Refinement of Expert System Knowledge Bases (CMU) &
    Heuristic Search:  Algorithms, Theory, and Learning (CMU) &
    Brains, Behavior, and Robotics (CSLI) &
    Situation Calculus Planning (SRI) &
    The Perspective Concept in Computer Science (CSLI)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 March 1986 1604-PST (Tuesday)
From: gross@nprdc.arpa (Michelle Gross)
Subject: Seminars - Acquiring Language & Computer Lexicon Use (SD SIGART)


Subject: SD SIGART-NLP meetings--Last and Next
We've been meeting the first Monday of each month.

Last night's meeting (our 3rd) covered Dr. Bob La Quey's efforts to
write a program that acquires language by determining which
grammatical rules are needed to parse incrementally more complex
text.  The main difficulty with his approach seems to be how to prevent
adding spurious rules when ungrammatical sentences sneak through.
Someone suggested attaching a reliability index to each rule.  The
index would be based on how often the rule has successfully helped a
parse get through.  (The hope is that the ad hoc rules for
ungrammatical input would have low index values).

We also discovered that the only given rule in the
grammar (S --> N V Terminator) prevented the program from creating a
rule to parse imperative sentences (S --> V).  Mallory Selfridge's 1981
IJCAI paper ``A Computer Model of Child Language Acquisition'' provided
some of the impetus for Bob's work.  His talk was entitled ``A Model of
Language Acquisition.''

Our next meeting  will be April 7th.  The topic will be the
lexicon--how we use it and how a computer can use it.  I volunteered to
present some relevant linguistic and computational literature.  I plan
to discuss how the lexicon is viewed in Transformational Grammar,
Lexical Functional Grammar, and Relational Grammar (I don't know enough
about GPSG to touch on that perspective).  I plan to discuss Cherry's
paper on the UNIX tool PARTS (a program from the Writer's Workbench
that assigns parts of speech by rule).  I would also like to discuss
the data structures used in various dictionary projects.

        Can anyone provide pointers to such information for the OED
        or Webster's projects?  Any other references or abstracts
        you can send would only enrich our provincial San Diegan
        discussions!  I have a 1982 IEEE article on PARTS and Cherry's
        1978 paper--are there are more recent references?

For more information on the SIG, you may contact Ed Weaver at work at
(619) 236-5963.  I'll forward any electronic responses on to him.

Thanks,
Michelle gross@nprdc.ARPA       ...ihnp4!sdcsvax!sdcc6!ix713 (UUCP)
Navy Personnel R&D Center       UCSD Linguistics, C-008
San Diego, CA. 92152-6800       La Jolla, CA. 92093

------------------------------

Date: 03 Mar 86  1042 PST
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - Commonsense Knowledge in the TACITUS Project (SU)


            Commonsense Knowledge in the TACITUS Project

                       Jerry R. Hobbs
                Artificial Intelligence Center
                      SRI International

                   Thursday, March 6, 4pm
                           MJH252

        In the TACITUS project for using commonsense knowledge in the
understanding of texts about mechanical devices and their failures, we
have been developing various commonsense theories that are needed to
mediate between the way we talk about the behavior of such devices and
causal models of their operation.  Of central importance in this effort
is the axiomatization of what might be called ``commonsense
metaphysics''.  This includes a number of areas that figure in virtually
every domain of discourse, such as granularity, scales, cycles, time,
space, material, physical objects, shape, causality, functionality, and
force.  Our effort has been to construct core theories of each of these
areas, and then to define, or at least characterize, a large number of
lexical items in terms provided by the core theories.  In this talk I
will discuss our methodological principles, such as aiming for the
maximum abstraction possible in order to accommodate metaphor and
analogy, and I will describe the key ideas in the various domains we are
investigating.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1986  20:35 EST
From: AGRE%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Seminar - Hubert Dreyfus on Being and Time (MIT)

Artificial Intelligence Seminar
Monday, March 10, 2:30pm
545 Technology Square
(MIT Building NE43)
7th Floor Playroom

WHY YOU SHOULD READ BEING AND TIME

Hubert L. Dreyfus
Philosophy Department
UC Berkeley

The beauty of artificial intelligence is that computation keeps you honest:
mistaken approaches will simply fail. I will argue that a diagnosis of
current difficulties in AI research can be found in the work of Martin
Heidegger.  Heidegger's Being and Time isolates a number of assumptions of
Western philosophy which, though subtle and pervasive, are contradicted by a
careful account of the phenomenology of everyday activity.  These
assumptions and their corollaries have been implicit (and sometimes
explicit) in most AI work since the field's beginnings.  The task now is to
find a positive alternative.  I will start by presenting some of the basic
concepts of Heidegger's phenomenology.  But Heidegger's account of everyday
practices does not directly provide an alternative to traditional methods in
AI because it offers a description rather than a mechanizable explanation.
It is difficult to reason about the ways descriptions and explanations
constrain one another.  Still, I will attempt a start by outlining the
virtues and failings of some new approaches, in particular those of the
connectionist movement.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Mar 1986 12:28-EST
From: gasser@usc-cse.usc.edu
Subject: Seminar - Intelligent Distributed Operating Systems (USC)

        USC Distributed Problem Solving Group Meeting

             Wednesday, 3/12/86  3:00 - 5:00 PM

                     Seaver Science 319

John Gieser, Ph.D. Student, USC, will speak on "'Intelligent'
Operating Systems for Distributed Computing".


                          ABSTRACT

Recent ideas from distributed problem solving (DPS) research appear
to have merit when used to acheive cooperation in open-ended
distributed computing systems (DCS).  To use these techniques, the
DCS nodes are viewed as autonomous agents in a problem-solving
situation, with each node governed by an "intelligent" operating
system (IOS).  This talk will focus on some ideas for providing the
structures and mechanisms needed in the IOS to handle problems
requiring cooperation such as distributed control, load
balancing/sharing, cooperating processes, etc.

Questions: Dr. Les Gasser, (213) 743-7794, or

           John Gieser (gieser@usc-cse.usc.edu)

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 4 Mar 86 16:31 EST
From: Jonathan Connell <jhc@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Seminar - Delegation and Inheritance (MIT)

       [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.]


Thursday , March 6  4:00pm  Room: NE43- 8th floor Playroom

                    The Artificial Intelligence Lab
                        Revolving Seminar Series

                      Delegation And Inheritance:
    Two Mechanisms for Sharing Knowledge in Object-Oriented Systems

                            Henry Lieberman

                              AI Lab, MIT


When a group of objects in an object oriented programming system shares
some common behavior, how can we avoid re-programming behavior in every
object that needs it?  I will explore the consequences of two mechanisms
for sharing knowledge, Inheritance and Delegation, for expressiveness
and performance of object oriented languages.

Using Inheritance, behavior common to a group of objects is encoded in a
Class object, which contains procedures for responding to messages, and
the names of variables that the procedure may access.  Each class may
create a set of Instances, which share the procedures of the class, but
may have their own private values for the variables.  Subclasses may
extend classes by adding additional procedures and variables.

Another way of sharing behavior is Delegation, which views each object
as a prototype capable of creating new objects by copying or reference,
removing the distinction between classes and instances.  General and
specialized objects communicate using message passing rather than a
"hard wired" mechanism.  Communication patterns can be determined at
message reception time rather than at compile time or object creation
time.  There is a time/space tradeoff between inheritance and
delegation, delegation permitting smaller objects at the cost of
increased message traffic.

------------------------------

Date: 20 February 1986 1450-EST
From: Betsy Herk@A.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Seminar - Refinement of Expert System Knowledge Bases (CMU)

Speaker:  Allen Ginsberg, Rutgers University
Date:    Wednesday, March 5
Time:    11:30 - 1:00
Place:   5409 WeH
Title:   The automatic refinement of expert system knowledge bases


Knowledge base refinement involves the generation, testing, and
possible incorporation of plausible refinements to the rules in
a knowledge base with the intention of thereby improving the
empirical adequacy of an expert system, i.e., its ability to
correctly diagnose or classify the cases in its domain of expertise.

The first part of the talk is a theoretical explication of the
basic concepts involved in knowledge base refinement -- e.g., a
precise analysis of one sense in which a refinement may be said
to be plausible is given -- and includes an overview of the
strategic goals that must be addressed by any knowledge base
refinement system.  As an illustration of the general theory,
the second part of the talk focuses on the SEEK2 system for
automatic knowledge base refinement.  In the last part of the
talk a brief discussion of a metalanguage for the experimental
design of refinement systems is given.

------------------------------

Date: 27 February 1986 1153-EST
From: Betsy Herk@A.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Seminar - Heuristic Search:  Algorithms, Theory, and Learning (CMU)

Speaker:   Richard Korf, Asst. Prof., Comp. Sci. Dept., UCLA
Date:      Friday, March 14
Time:      1:00 - 2:30
Place:     5409 Wean Hall
Title:     Heuristic search:  Algorithms, theory, and learning

           Abstract:

This talk will cover three new research results in the area of heuristic
search. The first is a new algorithm, called Iterative-Deepening-A*, that is
asymptotically optimal in terms of solution cost, time, and space among all
admissible heuristic tree searches. In practice, it is the only known
algorithm that is capable of finding optimal solutions to the Fifteen
Puzzle. The second is a theory which unifies the treatment of heuristic
evaluation functions in single-agent problems and two-person games. The
theory is based on the notion of a heuristic as a function that is invariant
over optimal solution paths. Based on this theory, we performed some
experiments on the automatic learning of heuristic functions.  Our program
was able to learn a set of relative weights for the different chess pieces
which is different from, but competitive with, the classical values.

------------------------------

Date: Wed 5 Mar 86 16:57:49-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - Brains, Behavior, and Robotics (CSLI)

          [Excerpted from the CSLI Calendar by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                     Brains, Behavior, and Robotics
                            by James S. Albus
          Discussion led by Pentti Kanerva (Kanerva@riacs.arpa)
            12 noon, TINLunch, Ventura Hall Conference Room
                       THURSDAY, March 13, 1986

      In 1950, Alan Turing wrote, ``We may hope that machines will
   eventually compete with men in all purely intellectual fields.  But
   which are the best ones to start with?  . . .  Many people think that
   a very abstract activity, like the playing of chess, would be best.
   It can also be maintained that it is best to provide the machine with
   the best sense organs that money can buy, and then teach it to
   understand.  . . .  This process could follow the normal teaching of a
   child.  Things would be pointed out and named, etc.  Again I do not
   know what the right answer is, but I think that both approaches should
   be tried.''  (Quoted by Albus on p. 5.)
      ``Brains, Behavior, and Robotics'' takes this ``Turing's second
   approach'' to artificial intelligence, the first being the pursuit of
   abstract reasoning.  The book combines over a decade of research by
   Albus.  It is predicated on the idea that to understand human
   intelligence we need to understand the evolution of intelligence in
   the animal kingdom.  The models developed are mathematical
   (computational), but one of their criteria is neurophysiological
   plausibility.  Although the research is aimed at understanding the
   mechanical basis of cognition, Albus also discusses philosophical and
   social implications of his work.

------------------------------

Date: Wed 5 Mar 86 16:44:14-PST
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: Seminar - Situation Calculus Planning (SRI)

      SITUATION CALCULUS PLANNING IN BLOCKS AND RELATED WORLDS

                        John McCarthy   (JMC@SU-AI)
                     Stanford University

                    11:00 AM, MONDAY, March 10
       SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)

This talk will present mainly ideas rather than completed work.
Situation calculus is based on the equation  s' = result(e,s),
where  s  and  s'  are situations and  e  is an event.  Provided
one can control the deduction adequately, this is a more powerful
formalism than STRIPS.  Planning a sequence of actions, or more
generally, a strategy of actions to achieve a situation with
specified properties, admits a variety of heuristics which
whittle away at the problem.  In many practical situations, these
heuristics, which don't guarantee a full solution but leave a
reduced problem, are sufficient.  Humans appear to use many of them
and so should computer programs.  The talk therefore will concern both
epistemological and heuristic aspects of planning problems.

------------------------------

Date: Wed 5 Mar 86 16:57:49-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - The Perspective Concept in Computer Science (CSLI)

          [Excerpted from the CSLI Calendar by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND DEVELOPMENT TALK
               The Perspective Concept in Computer Science
            12:15, Monday, March 10, Ventura Conference Room

      Our topic next Monday (March 10) will be a continued discussion
   (introduced by Jens Kaasboll) of the issues raised by Kristen Nygaard
   in his talk about perspectives on the use of computers:
      Regardless of definitions of ``perspective'', there exist many
   perspectives on computers.  Computers are regarded as systems, tools,
   institutions, toys, partners, media, symbols, etc.  Even so, there
   exist system description languages but no tool, or institution, or
   ... languages.  What do the other perspectives reflect, which make
   them less attractive for language designers?  Suggestive answer: The
   system perspective is the definite computer science perspective in
   which the processes inside the computers are regarded as the goal of
   our work.  Viewed through some of the other perspectives, the computer
   is seen as a means for achieving ends outside the computer, i.e., the
   needs of people using the computers.

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂06-Mar-86  1616	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #45
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Mar 86  16:16:21 PST
Date: Wed  5 Mar 1986 22:41-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #45
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Thursday, 6 Mar 1986      Volume 4 : Issue 45

Today's Topics:
  Queries - Belief Theories for Uncertainties &
    Non-Monotonic Reasoning/Probabilistic Reasoning & GCLISP &
    Expert System Shell Software,
  Linguistics - Ambiguous Sentence & Lexicons,
  Logic Programming - Prolog Book

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue 4 Mar 86 06:24:39-PST
From: Ted Markowitz <G.TJM@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Belief Theories for uncertainties

Can anyone supply pointers to articles on the Dempster-Shafer belief
theory work?

--ted

------------------------------

Date: 4 Mar 86 02:30:48 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!bbnccv!bbncca!wanginst!malek
      @ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Sharon Malek)
Subject: Non-Monotonic Reasoning/Probabilistic Reasoning for Expert Sys.

I'm looking for information on non-monotonic reasoning and probabilistic
reasoning techniques for expert systems, as part of my graduate assistant
assignment.
Any assistance would be appreciated.  Please mail responses.
Thanks,

--
Sharon Malek                             malek@wanginst        (Csnet)
Wang Institute of Graduate Studies       wanginst!malek        (UUCP)
Tyng Road, Tyngsboro, MA 01879           (617) 649-9731

------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 86 22:03:18 GMT
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!pamp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (pam pincha)
Subject: GCLISP

This is a request for information from anyone
who has had the occasion to use Golden Common LISP
-- especially the version 2.0 called GCLISP 286
Developer system. We need to know if the system
works well on the IBM host; whether it response
is reasonable for systems larger than just toy demos;
how easy it is to use....etc.,etc.,etc.......
Basically, would you or would you not recommend it
and for what level of work would you recommend it,
and why (or why not)?
Please use mail to send you reply. I'll summarize
to the group if there is interest.

Thanks in advance,
P.M.Pincha-Wagener

PS. Comments on how well the scoping is handled in
this system would be of help also.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Mar 86 23:41:00 est
From: mayerk%UPenn-GradEd%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
Subject: Searching for comments on expert system shell software...


I'm currently putting together an introductory course
on expert systems here at Penn, and I'm in need of
sage advice.  Part of the course will involve using
some expert system shell for homework assignments.
The assignments will involve:  Forward and backward
chaining, frames, CFs, contexts (maybe), and a final
project that will be a small prototypical system from
a selected list of subjects.

I've plowed through some of the hype from various
vendors, but I'd like more information from people
who have either used them, or used others that are
personal favorites.

If anyone is interested, I'll send out an appendix
of all of the responses I get.

Here is an uncut list from a database that I'm compiling:

Vendor Name                                     Product Name
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←        ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
Expert Systems International, Ltd.              ES/P  Advisor
ExperTelligence, Inc.                           ExperFacts
                                                ExperLisp
                                                ExperLisp-3600
                                                ExperLisp-Talk
Exsys, Inc.                                     Exsys Version 3.0
Human Edge                                      Expert Ease
                                                Expert Edge
Intelliware, Inc.                               Experteach
Jeffrey Perrone & Associates, Inc.              Advisor
                                                Ex-Tran
                                                Expert Ease
                                                EXSYS
                                                Grid-Xpert
                                                Insight
KDS Corporation                                 KDS
Lithp Systems BV                                Daisy
Micro Data Base Systems/Marketing & Sales       Guru
Radian Corporation                              RuleMaster
Silogic, Inc.                                   The Knowledge Work Bench
Software Architecture and Engineering, Inc.     KES II
Texas Instruments                               Arborist
                                                TI Personal Consultant

You'll have to excuse me if the list seems a little "raw,"
but I thought that it unfair to omit anything until I hear
a little more.  (Most of the above are unsuitable for my
needs, but in the interests of a wider community, comments
might be valuable.)

Send responses to:

mayerk%UPenn-Graded                     Kenneth Mayer
                                        University of Pennsylvania
                                        (215) 387-4751

------------------------------

Date: Tue 4 Mar 86 06:30:40-PST
From: Ted Markowitz <G.TJM@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Ambiguous sentences cont.

Yet another ambiguous sentence that I've run across in NLP classes
is:

        "The host smiled as he turned on the electric spit."

I leave it to reader to generate the permutations...

--ted

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Mar 86 15:34:14 est
From: Mark J. Norton
      <bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!teddy!mjn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: QUERY RE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LEXICONS

Although you mentioned that you are not intrested in commericial lexicons,
I would suggest you contact someone in AI R&D at Wang Laboratories.  I
spent several years there working on these and can assure you that they are
quality lexicons containing all (and more) of the information you require.
The source of data is the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, to which
they own exclusive computer rights.  They also have on-line lexicons dealing
with Legal Terms, Medical Terms, Scientific Terms, Roget's Thesaurus,
Place-Names, Translation Aids to French, German, Spanish, Italian, Japanese,
Chinese, Korean, and Arabic, British Spellings of words,
and other specialized lists.  It is quite possible that Wang
might let you use their information in return for application and
consultation access.  Send me mail if you would like to persue this, and
need specific contacts there.

Mark J. Norton, 59 New Estate Road, Littleton, MA  01460.


--
                Mark J. Norton
                {decvax,linus,wjh12,mit-eddie,cbosgd,masscomp}!genrad!panda!mjn
                mjn@sunspot

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Mar 86 11:47:33 pst
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!polyslo!cburdor@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
      (Christopher Burdorf)
Subject: Re: Prolog Books

 I would recommend Logic for Problem Solving, by Robert Kowolski.

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂06-Mar-86  1919	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #46
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Mar 86  19:18:52 PST
Date: Thu  6 Mar 1986 16:09-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #46
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest             Friday, 7 Mar 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 46

Today's Topics:
  Theory - Knowledge & Dreyfus & Turing Test

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat 1 Mar 86 20:04:39-PST
From: Lee Altenberg <ALTENBERG@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Alan Watts on AI

        I thought Ailist readers might be interested in the following
excerpt from "Oriental Omnipotence" in THE ESSENTIAL ALAN WATTS:

        We must begin by showing the difference between Western and
Eastern ideas of omniscience and omnipotence.  A Chinese Buddhist poem
says:
        You may wish to ask where the flowers come from,
        But even the God of Spring doesn't know.

A Westerner would expect that, of all people, the God of Spring would
know exactly how flowers are made.  But if he doesn't know, how can he
possibly make them?  A buddhist would answer that the question itself is
misleading since flowers are grown, not made.  Things which are made are
either assemblages of formerly separate parts (like houses) or
constructed by cutting and shaping from without inwards (like pots of
clay or images).  But things which are grown formulate their own
structure and differentiate their own parts from within outwards. ...
         If, then, the God of Spring does not make the flowers, how does
he produce them?  The answer is that he does so in the same way that you
and I grow our hair, beat our hearts, structure our bones and nerves,
and move our limbs.  To us, this seems a very odd statement because we
do not ordinarily think of ourselves as actively growing our hair in the
same way that we move our limbs.  But the difference vanishes when we
ask ourselves just HOW we raise a hand, or just how we make a mental
decision to raise a hand.  For we do not know-- or, more corectly, we do
know but we cannot describe how it is done in words.
        To be more exact:  the process is so innate and so SIMPLE that
it cannot be conveyed by anything so complicated and cumbersome as human
language, which has to describe everything in terms of a linear series
of fixed signs.  This cumbersome way of making communicable
representations of the world makes the description of certain events as
complicated as trying to drink water with a fork.  It is not that these
actions or events are complicated in themselves:  the complexity lies in
trying to fit them into the clumsy instrumentality of language, which
can deal only with one thing (or "think") at a time.
        Now the Western mind identifies what it knows with what it can
describe and communicate in some system of symbols, whether linguistic
or mathematical-- that is, with what it can think about.  Knowledge is
thus primarily the content of thought, of a system of symbols which make
up a very approximate model or representation of reality.  In somewhat
the same way, a newspaper photograph is a repesentation of a natural
scene in terms of a fine screen of dots.  But as the actual scene is not
a lot of dots, so the real world is not in fact a lot of things or
"thinks".
        The Oriental mind uses the term KNOWLEDGE in another sense
besides this-- in the sense of knowing how to do actions which cannot be
explained .  In this sense, we know how to breathe and how to walk, and
even how to grow hair, because that is just what we do!

------------------------------

Date: Sat 1 Mar 86 20:10:32-PST
From: Stuart Russell <RUSSELL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Addressing some of Dreyfus' specific points

To address some of the actual content of Dreyfus' recent talk at Stanford,
delivered to an audience consisting mostly of AI researchers:

1) The discussion after the talk was remarkably free of strong dissent, for
the simple reason that Dreyfus is now making a sloppy attempt at a
cognitive model for AI, rather than making any substantive criticism of AI.
Had his talk been submitted to AAAI as a paper, it would probably have been
rejected as containing no new ideas and weak empirical backing.

2) The backbone of his argument is that human *experts* solve problems by
accessing a store of cached, generalized solutions rather than by extensive
reasoning. He admits that before becoming expert, humans operate just like
AI reasoning systems, otherwise they couldn't solve any problems and thus
couldn't cache solutions. He also admits that even experts use reasoning
to solve problems insufficiently similar to those they have seen before.
He doesn't say how solutions are to be abstracted before caching, and
doesn't seem to be aware of much of the work on chunking, rule compilation,
explanation-based generalization and macro-operator formation which has
been going on for several years. Thus he seems to be proposing a performance
mechanism that was proposed long ago in AI, acts as if he (or his brother)
invented it and assumes, therefore, that AI can't have made any progress yet
towards understanding it.

3) He proposes that humans access previous situations and their solutions
by an "intuitive, holistic matching process" based on "total similarity"
rather than on "breaking down situations into features and matching on
relevant features". When I asked him what he meant by this, he said
he couldn't be any more specific and didn't know any more than he'd said.
(He taped our conversation, so he can no doubt correct the wording.)
In the talk, he mentioned Roger Shepard's work on similarity (stimulus
generalization) as support for this view, but when I asked him how the
work supported his ideas, it became clear that he knew very little about it.
Shepard's results can be explained equally well if situations are
described in terms of features, but more importantly they only apply when
the subject has no idea of which parts of the situation are relevant to the
solution, which is hardly the case when an expert is solving problems. In
fact, the fallacy of analogical reasoning by total similarity (which is the
only mechanism he is proposing to support his expert phase of skilled
performance) has long been recognized in philosophy, and also more recently
in AI. Moreover, the concept of similarity without any goal context (i.e.
without any purpose for which the similarity will be used) seems to be
incoherent. Perhaps this is why he doesn't attempt to define what it means.

4) His final point is that such a mechanism cannot be implemented in a
system which uses symbolic descriptions. Quite apart from the fact that
the mechanism doesn't work, and cannot produce any kind of useful
performance, there is no reason to believe this, nor does he give one.

In short, to use the terminology of review forms, he is now doing AI but
the work doesn't contain any novel ideas or techniques, does not report
on substantial research, does not properly cite related work and does
not contribute substantially to knowledge in the field. If it weren't
for the bee in his bonnet about proving AI (except the part he's now doing)
to be fruitless and dishonest, he might be able to make a useful
contribution, especially given his training in philosophy.

Stuart Russell
Stanford Knowledge Systems Lab

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 1 Mar 86 14:23:45 est
From: Jeffrey Greenberg <green@ohio-state.ARPA>
Reply-to: green@osu-eddie.UUCP (Jeffrey Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Technology Review article


> re:
> Dreyfus' distinction between learning symbolically how to do a task
> and 'doing' the task...i.e. body's knowledge.
>
I agree with the Dreyfus brothers - the difficulty many AI people have
(in my opinion) is a fundamental confusion of
"knowledge of" versus "knowledge that."

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 86 02:37:13 GMT
From: hplabs!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Technology Review article (Deryfus actuall)

<1814@bbncc5.UUCP>
>
> About 14 years ago Hubert Dreyfus wrote a paper titled "Why Computers Can't
> Play Chess" - immediately thereafter, someone at the MIT AI lab challenged
> Dreyfus to play one of the chess programs - which trounced him royally -
> the output of this was an MIT AI Lab Memo titled "The Artificial Intelligence
> of Hubert Dreyfus, or Why Dreyfus Can't Play Chess".
>
> The document was hilarious. If anyone still has a copy, I'd like to arrange
> a xerox of it.
>
> Miles Fidelman (mfidelman@bbncc5.arpa)

Excuse the fact I reproduced all that above rather than digest it.
I just attended a talk given by Dreyfus (for the first time).  I think
the AI community is FORTUNATE to have a loyal opposition following of
Dr. Dreyfus.  In some defense, Dreyfus is somewhat kind to the AI
community (in constrast to some AI critics I know) for instance he does
believe in the benefit of expert systems and expert assistants.
Dreyfus feels that the AI community harped on the above:
        Men play chess.
        Computers play chess.
        Dreyfus is a man.
        Computer beat Dreyfus.
        Therefore, computers can beat man playing chess.
He pointed out he sent his brother (supposedily captain of the Harvard
chess team at one time) and he beat the computer (we should write
his brother at UCB CS to verify this I supose).
While I do not fully agree with Dreyfus's philosophy or his
"methodology," he is a bright thinker and critic. [One point we
do not agree on: he believes in the validity of the Turing test,
I do not (in the way it currently stands).]

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  eugene@ames-nas.ARPA
p.s. I would not mind seeing a copy of the paper myself. :-)

------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 86 02:17:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!bsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: "self-styled philosophers"

William James once wrote that all great theories go through three
distinct stages:  first, everyone claims the theory is simply wrong,
and not worth taking seriously.  Second, people start saying that,
maybe it's true, but it's trivial.  And third, people are heard to
say that not only is it true and important, but they thought of it
first.
Here at the University of Illinois, it seems to be de rigeur
to laugh and deride Dreyfuss whenever his name comes up.  I am
convinced the majority of these people have never read any of
Dreyfuss' work--however, this is unimportant to them (clearly I don't
mean everyone here).  There are also those who spend a great deal of
time and effort rejecting everything Dreyfuss says.  For example,
recently Dr. Buchanan (of Stanford) gave a lecture here.  He purported
to be answering Dreyfuss, but in the great majority of cases agreed
with him (always saying something like, "Well, maybe it's true, but
who cares?").  It seems to me that, if Dreyfuss is so unimportant, it
is very strange indeed that so many people get so offended by
everything he says and does.  Perhaps AI researchers ought to be less
sensitive and start encouraging this sort of interdisciplinary
activity.  Perhaps then AI will move forward and finally live up to
its promise.
Barry Smith

------------------------------

Date: Wed,  5 Mar 86 15:38:08 GMT
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: A Tale for Marvin the Paranoid Android.

> From AIList Vol 4 # 33:-
> His main thesis is that there are certain human qualities and
> attributes, for example certain emotions, that are just not the
> kinds of things that are amenable to mechanical mimicry.
> ...
> Peter Ladkin

> From AIList Vol 4 # 41:-
> As I pointed out, but you deleted, his major argument is that
> there are some areas of human experience related to intelligence
> which do not appear amenable to machine mimicry.
> ...
> Peter Ladkin

Could these areas be named exactly? Agreed that there are emotional
aspects that cannot be programmed into a machine, what parts of the
``human experience related to intelligence'' will also remain out-
side of the machine's grip?

Gordon Joly
ARPA: gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj

------------------------------

Date: Mon,  3 Mar 86 12:54:02 GMT
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: The Turing Test - A Third Quantisation?

The original basis  for the Turing test was to  see if it was possible
to distinguish, purely from a text,  whether you were talking to a man
or woman. The extension of this, the Turing test itself, seeks to give
a criterion  for deciding  on whether or not  a intelligent system  is
"truly intelligent".  A human  asks questions and receives  answers in
textual form.  (S)he then has to decide  if it is a machine behind the
screen or not.
Now,  supposing a system  has been built which  "passes" the test. Why
not take  the process  one stage  further?  Why not  try to design  an
intelligent system which can decide whether *it* is talking to machine
or not?

Gordon Joly
ARPA: gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂10-Mar-86  1450	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #47
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Mar 86  13:53:22 PST
Date: Mon 10 Mar 1986 09:05-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #47
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Monday, 10 Mar 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 47

Today's Topics:
  Article/Seminar - The TI Compact LISP Machine (Dallas ACM),
  Seminars - Tools Beyond Technique (UCB) &
    Knowledge and Action in the Presence of Faults (SU) &
    Adaptive Networks (GTE) &
    Stochastic Complexity (IBM-SJ) &
    Updating Databases with Incomplete Information (SU) &
    Parallel Architectures for Knowledge Bases (SMU),
  Conference - 1987 Linguistics Institute

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: Article/Seminar - The TI Compact LISP Machine (Dallas ACM)

ACM Dallas Chapter Meeting Notice
Speaker: Alfred Ricoomi
         Senior Member, Technical Staff
         Texas Instruments
Topic: The TI Compact LISP Machine

The February 17 issue of Aviation Week is devoted to the military
application of Artificial Intelligence.  One article reports on the
development, at TI, of a military LISP machine.  Mr. Riccomi will
describe the machine, its near term applications, and likely spin-offs
into the commercial world especially in the airline industry.

Place: INFOMART, 1950 nStemmons Freeway (at Oak Lawn)Room 7004

Date: Tuesday, March 11, 1986, 7:30 - 8:15

------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 86 00:24:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!marcel@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Seminar - Tools Beyond Technique (UCB)

WHEN:   12:00 noon, Wednesday, March 5th
WHERE:  Canterbury House,
        University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
                    TOOLS BEYOND TECHNIQUE
                       Marcel Schoppers
                    Dept of Computer Science
                U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
In this talk I will propose yet another way to characterize AI, but
one which I hope captures the intuitions of AI researchers: that AI is
the attempt to liberate tools/machines from absolute dependence on
human control. That done, I will suggest some achievements which should,
according to this characterization of AI, demonstrate the success of
AI work. Importantly, both the characterization and those crucial
achievements contain no comparison to human capabilities. I therefore
maintain that several contemporary arguments for and against the future
success of AI are at once fallacious and beside the point. Among others:
the AI community's claim that "brains are computers too" is hardly necessary
and certainly not scientific, while Weizenbaum's "maybe computers can think,
but they shouldn't" is self-defeating. On the issue of whether artificial
intelligence will ever be achieved I will not commit myself, but at least
my characterization provides a down-to-earth criterion.

A paper on this subject (in the socio-communications literature):
"A perspective on artificial intelligence in society" Communications 9:2
   (december 1985).

------------------------------

Date: Thu 6 Mar 86 06:09:35-PST
From: Oren Patashnik <PATASHNIK@SU-SUSHI.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - Knowledge and Action in the Presence of Faults (SU)

AFLB, 13-Mar-86  :  Yoram Moses (MIT)
12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460)

        Knowledge, Common Knowledge, and Simultaneous Actions
                     in the Presence of Faults

We show that any protocol that guarantees to perform a particular
action simultaneously at all sites of a distributed system must
guarantee that the sites attain common knowledge of particular facts
when such an action is performed. We analyze what facts become common
knowledge at various points in the execution of protocols in a simple
model of a system in which processors are liable to crash.  We obtain
a new protocol for Simultaneous Byzantine Agreement that is optimal in
all of its runs. That is, rather than achieving the worst case
behavior, every run of the protocol halts at the earliest possible
time, given the pattern in which failures occur. This may happen as
early as after two rounds. We characterize precisely what failure
patterns require the protocol to run for k rounds, 1<k<t+2,
generalizing and simplifying the lower bound proof for Byzantine
agreement.  We also show a non-trivial simultaneous action for which
popular belief would suggest that t+1 rounds would be required in the
worst case, and use our analysis to design a protocol for it that
always halts in two rounds. This work sheds considerable light on many
heretofore mysterious aspects of the Byzantine Agreement problem. It
is one of the first examples of how reasoning about knowledge can be
used to obtain improved solutions to problems in distributed computing.

This is joint work with Cynthia Dwork of IBM Almaden.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 86 14:24:29 est
From: Rich Sutton <rich%gte-labs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - Adaptive Networks (GTE)


              Self-Organization, Memorization,
       and Associative Recall of Sensory Information
              by Brain-Like Adaptive Networks

     Tuevo Kohonen,  Helsinki University of Technology

The main purpose of thinking is to forecast phenomena that take place
in the environment.  To this end, humans and animals must refer to a
complicated knowledge base which is somewhat vaguely called memory.
One has to realize the two main problem areas in a discussion of memory:
(1) the memory mechanism itself, and (2) the internal representations of
sensory information in the brain networks.

Most of the experimental and theoretical works have concentrated on the
first problem.  Although it has been extremely difficult to detect memory
traces experimentally, the storage mechanism is theoretically still the
easier part of the problem.  Contrary to this, it has been almost a
mystery how a physical system can automatically extract various kinds
of abstraction from the huge number of vague sensor signals.  This paper
now contains some novel views and results about the formation of such
internal representations in idealized neural networks, and their
memorization.  It seems that both of the above functions, viz. formation
of the internal representations and their storage, can be implemented
simultaneously by an adaptive, self-organizing neural structure which
consists of a great number of neural units arranged into a
two-dimensional network.  A number of computer simulations are presented
to illustrate both the self-organized formation of sensory feature maps,
as well as associative recall of activity patterns from the distributed
memory.

When:    March 14, 1:00 pm
Where:   GTE Labs 3-131
Contact: Rich Sutton, Rich@GTE-Labs.CSNet, (617)466-4133

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 86 14:52:51 PST
From: CALENDAR@IBM-SJ.ARPA
Subject: Seminar - Stochastic Complexity (IBM-SJ)


                  IBM Almaden Research Center
                         650 Harry Road
                    San Jose, CA 95120-6099

                            CALENDAR
                       March 10 - 14, 1986


  Computer        STOCHASTIC COMPLEXITY AND THE MDL AND PMDL PRINCIPLES
  Science         J. J. Rissanen, IBM Almaden Research Center
  Colloquium

  Thurs., Mar. 13 There is no rational basis in traditional
  3:00 P.M.       statistics for the comparison of two models
  Rear Audit.     unless they have the same number of parameters.
                  Hence, for example, the important
                  selection-of-variables problem has a dozen or so
                  solutions, none of which can be
                  preferred over the others.  Recently, inspired
                  by the algorithmic notion of complexity, we
                  introduced a new concept in statistics, the
                  Stochastic Complexity of the observed data,
                  relative to a class of proposed probabilistic
                  models.  In broad terms, it is defined as the
                  least number of binary digits with which the
                  data can be encoded by use of the selected
                  models.  The stochastic complexity also
                  represents the smallest prediction errors which
                  result when the data are predicted by use of the
                  models.  Accordingly, the associated optimal
                  model represents all the statistical information
                  in the data that can be extracted with the
                  proposed models, and for this reason its
                  computation, which we call the MDL (Minimum
                  Description Length) principle, may be taken to
                  be the fundamental problem in statistics.  In
                  this talk, we describe a special form of the MDL
                  principle, which amounts to the minimization of
                  squared "honest" prediction errors, and we apply
                  it to two examples of polynomial curve fitting
                  as well as to contingency tables.  In the first
                  example, which calls for the prediction of
                  weight growth of mice, the degree of the MDL
                  polynomial agrees with the optimal degree,
                  determined in retrospect after the predicted
                  weights were seen.  The associated predictions
                  also far surpass those made with the best
                  traditional statistical techniques.  A
                  fundamental theorem is given, which permits
                  comparison of models in the spirit of the
                  Cramer-Rao inequality, except that the models
                  need not have the same number of parameters.  It
                  also settles the issue of how the
                  selection-of-variables problem is to be solved.
                  Host:  R. Arps
                  (Refreshments at 2:45 P.M.)
[...]

------------------------------

Date: Fri 7 Mar 86 17:33:40-PST
From: Marianne Winslett <WINSLETT@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - Updating Databases with Incomplete Information (SU)


         Updating Databases With Incomplete Information
                           --or--
          Belief Revision is Harder Than You Thought


                      Marianne Winslett

                           PhD Oral
                        Area X Seminar
                      Margaret Jacks 352
                   Friday, March 14, 3:15 PM

Suppose one wishes to construct, use, and maintain a database of
knowledge about the real world, even though the facts about that world
are only partially known.  In the database domain, this situation
arises when database users must coax information into and out of
databases in the face of missing values and uncertainty.  In the AI
domain, this problem arises when an agent has a base set of beliefs
that reflect partial knowledge about the world, and then tries to
incorporate new, possibly contradictory knowledge into the old set of
beliefs.  In the logic domain, one might choose to represent such a
database as a logical theory, and view the models of the theory as
possible states of the real world.

How can new information (i.e., updates) be incorporated into the
database?  For example, given the new information that "b or c is
true," how can we get rid of all outdated information about b and c,
add the new information, and yet in the process not disturb any other
information in the database?  The burden may be placed on the user or
other omniscient authority to determine exactly which changes in the
theory will bring about the desired set of models.  But what's really
needed is a way to specify an update intensionally, by stating some
well-formed formula that the state of the world is now known to
satisfy and letting the database management system automatically
figure out how to accomplish that update.

This talk will explore a technique for updating databases containing
incomplete information.  Our approach embeds the incomplete database
and the updates in the language of first-order logic, which we believe
has strong advantages over relational tables and traditional data
manipulation languages when information is incomplete.  We present
semantics and algorithms for our update operators, and describe an
implementation of the algorithms.  This talk should be accessible to
all who are comfortable with first-order logic and have a passing
acquaintance with the notion of database updates.

------------------------------

Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: Seminar - Parallel Architectures for Knowledge Bases (SMU)

Toward Computer Architectures for Database and Knowledge Base Processing
Computer Science and Engineering Seminar, Friday, March 14, 1986
Speaker: Lubomir Bic
         University of California at Irvine
Location: 315SIC
Time: 3:00 PM

The importance of parallelism has been recognized in recent years and
a number of multiprocessor architectures claiming suitability to
intelligent data and knowledge base processing have been proposed.
The success of these architectures has been, in most cases, rather
modest.  The message conveyed in this talk is that, in order to build
highly-parallel computer architectures, new models of computation
capable of exploiting the potential of large numbers of processing
elments and memory units must first be developed.  To support this
claim, two such models-- one for processing queries in a
network-oriented database system and another for extracting
information from a logic-based knowledge representation system -- will
be outlined.  Both models are based on the principles of asynchronous
data-driven computation, which eliminate the need for centralized
control and shared memory.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 8 Mar 86 15:29:19 est
From: walker@mouton.ARPA (Don Walker at mouton.ARPA)
Subject: Conference - 1987 Linguistics Institute

                     1987 LINGUISTICS INSTITUTE
                        STANFORD UNIVERSITY


The 1987 Summer Institute of the Linguistic Society of America will be
hosted by the Linguistics Department of Stanford University, from June
29  to  August 7, 1987.   It is  co-sponsored  by the  Association for
Computational Linguistics.

The theme of the Institute is "Contextual and Computational Dimensions
of Language",  and is meant  to reflect  the ever-growing  interest in
integrating theories of linguistic structure with theories of language
processing and models of  how language conveys information in context.
The aim is to provide  a forum in which it is possible  to integrate a
variety of  linguistic  traditions,  particularly  linguistic  theory,
computational  linguistics,   discourse  analysis,  psycholinguistics,
sociolinguistics, and artificial intelligence.

Several  different  kinds  of courses and activities will  be  offered
during the six-week period of the Institute:
     (i)    A  series  of overview classes in  the  main  subareas  of
linguistics (six weeks, 3 units)
     (ii)   A series of one-week intensive classes intended to provide
background for the four-week courses and seminars below (June  29-July
3, 1 unit)
     (iii)  Four-week classes on  topics related directly to the theme
of the Institute (July 13-August 7, 2 units)
     (iv)    Several seminars associated with research workshops  will
run throughout the last four weeks.  These can be taken for credit, as
part  of  the Stanford "directed research" program (subject  to  prior
approval of the workshop leader) (up to three units)
     (v)     A series of Wednesday lectures (e.g.,on the Synthesis  of
Approaches to Discourse), involving Institute participants and invited
visitors
     (vi)  The Association for Computational Linguistics will hold its
annual meeting during the second week of the Institute (July 6-10).

1987  marks  the  first  time in recent  years  that  two  consecutive
Institutes have been held with the same theme.   This  complementarity
of  the 1986 Institute held at the City University of New York and the
1987  Institute reflects remarkable changes taking place today in  the
field  of linguistics.   Taken together,  the Institutes  provide  the
depth  and  diversity necessary to cover the newly emerging  subfields
and  to  teach the range of interdisciplinary tools and  knowledge  so
fundamental  to  new  theoretical approaches.  The  1987  Institute at
Stanford differs from the 1986 Institute  primarily in specific course
offerings   and  faculty  and  in  its  focus  on  providing  a   rich
interdisciplinary research as well as teaching environment.   Many  of
the  instructors  will also be participating in  research  groups;  in
general  they   will teach only  one  course.

The  Executive  planning committee is:   Ivan  Sag  (Director),  Ellen
Prince (Associate Director), Marlys Macken, Peter Sells, and Elizabeth
Traugott.   David Perlmutter will be the Sapir Professor,  and  Joseph
Greenberg the Collitz Professor of the 1987 Institute.

For  more  information,   write  1987  LSA  Institute,  Department  of
Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, California  94305.

Preliminary List of Institute Faculty:

  Judith Aissen
  Elaine Anderson
  Stephen Anderson
  Philip Baldi
  Jon Barwise
  Joan Bresnan
  Gennaro Chierchia
  Kenneth Church
  Eve Clark
  Herbert Clark
  Nick Clements
  Charles Clifton
  Philip Cohen
  Robin Cooper
  William Croft
  Penelope Eckert
  Elisabet Engdahl
  Charles Ferguson
  Charles Fillmore
  Joshua Fishman
  Lyn Frazier
  Victoria Fromkin
  J. Mark Gawron
  Gerald Gazdar
  Joseph Greenberg
  Barbara Grosz
  Jorge Hankamer
  Jerry Hobbs
  Paul Hopper
  Larry Horn
  Philip Johnson-Laird
  Ron Kaplan
  Lauri Karttunen
  Martin Kay
  Paul Kay
  Paul Kiparsky
  William Ladusaw
  William Leben
  Steve Levinson
  Mark Liberman
  Marlys Macken
  William Marslen-Wilson
  John McCarthy
  Nils Nilsson
  Barbara Partee
  Fernando Pereira
  David Perlmutter
  Ray Perrault
  Stanley Peters
  Carl Pollard
  William Poser
  Ellen Prince
  Geoffrey Pullum
  John Rickford
  Luigi Rizzi
  Ivan Sag
  Deborah Schiffrin
  Peter Sells
  Stuart Shieber
  Candace Sidner
  Brian Smith
  Donca Steriade
  Susan Stucky
  Michael Tanenhaus
  Elizabeth Traugott
  Peter Trudgill
  Lorraine Tyler
  Thomas Wasow
  Terry Winograd
  Annie Zaenen
  Arnold Zwicky

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂10-Mar-86  1800	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #48
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Mar 86  18:00:30 PST
Date: Mon 10 Mar 1986 12:57-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #48
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Tuesday, 11 Mar 1986      Volume 4 : Issue 48

Today's Topics:
  Bibliographies - AI Applications & Robotics and Manufacturing Automation

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: Bibliography - AI Applications

definitions

D BOOK22 Applications of Artificial Intelligence\
%I Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers\
%D 1-3 April 1986\
%N 635\
%C Orlando
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←

%A J. F. Gilmore
%A K. Pulaski
%T Comparative Analysis of Expert System Tools
%B BOOK22
%K AI01 T03

%A Y.-c. You
%T Expert System for Model Management
%B BOOK22
%K AI01

%A J. R. Slagle
%T Expert System for Treadmill Exercise ECG Test Anlaysis
%B BOOK22
%K AI01 AA01

%A D. L. Tobat
%A S. K. Rogers
%A S. E. Cross
%T SENTiNEL: An Expert System Decision Aid for a Command, Control and
Communication Operator
%B BOOK22
%K AI01 AA18

%A M. F. Doherty
%A C. M. Bjorklund
%A R. H. Laprade
%A M. T. Noga
%A C. Y Yang
%T Improved Cartographic Classifications via Expert Systems
%B BOOK22
%K AI01

%A D. Ho
%A K. Pulaski
%T GEST: Generic Expert System Tool
%B BOOK22
%K AI01 T03

%A G. A. Roberts
%T Expert System for Labeling Segments in FLIR Imagery
%B BOOK22
%K AI01 AI06

%A RM. Ali
%A D. A. Scharnhortst
%A C.-S. AI
%A H. J. Ferber
%T Forward Chaining Versus a Graph Approach as the Inference Engine in
Expert Systems
%B BOOK22
%K AI01

%A A. Bravos
%T Application of the CSAL Language to the Design of Diagnostic Expert
Systems: the MOODIS (mood disorder) Experience
%B BOOK22
%K AI01 AA01 psychology

%A D. D. Dankel II
%A R. V. Rodriguez
%A F. D. Anger
%T HAIM OMLET: Expert System Research Tool for Discrete Structures
%B BOOK22
%K AI01

%A A. P. Levine
%T ESP: Expert System for Computer Performance Management
%B BOOK22
%K AI01 AA08

%A J. C. Esteva
%A R. G. Reynolds
%T Real-Time Knowledge Base Deviation Diagnostic Expert Systems
%B BOOK22
%K AI01

%A G. Drastal
%A T. DuBois
%A L. McAndrews
%A N. Straguzzi
%A S. Raatz
%T Economy in Expert System Development: Aegis Combat System Maintenance Advisor
%B BOOK22
%K AI01 AA18 O02

%A B. Korel
%T Program Error Localization Expert System
%B BOOK22
%K AI01 AA08

%A G. Y. Tang
%T Expert System Makes Image Processing Easier
%B BOOK22
%K AI01 AI06

%A R. K. Eisley
%A M. S. Lan
%T Expert Measurement System for Ultrasonically Characterizing
Material Properties
%B BOOK22
%K AI01 AA05

%A J. Aloimonos
%A A. Basu
%T Shape and Motion From Contour Without Correspondece
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A A. Stevenson
%A M. Fox
%A M. Rabin
%T TESS: Tactical Expert System
%B BOOK22
%K AI01

%A M. V. Orman
%T Modified Hough Transform for Finding Lines in an Edge Map
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A G. Bilbro
%A W. Snyder
%T System to Recognize Objects in 3D Images
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A T. C. Rearick
%T Real-time Image Understanding
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A A. M. Darwish
%A A. K. Jain
%T Rule Based System for Automated Industrial Inspection
%B BOOK22
%K AI06 AI01

%A N. C. Griswold
%A C. P. Jeh
%T Stereo Model Based on Mechanisms of Human Binocular Vision
%B BOOK22
%K AI06 AI08

%A R. S. Loe
%A T. J. Laffey
%T Measurement of the 3D Radius of Curvature Using the Facet Approach
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A D. K. Walters
%T Object Interpretation Using Boundary-Based Perceptually Valid Features
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A S. Tynor
%A C. C. Tsang
%A K. Gingher
%T VEST: Visual Expert System Testbed
%B BOOK22
%K AI06 AI01

%A J. Aloimonos
%A A. Bandyopadhyay
%T Perception of 3D Motion Without Correspondence
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A J. Merchant
%A T. J. Boyd
%T Flexible Template Matching for Autonomous Classification
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A J. H. Nurre
%A E. L. Hall
%T Error Analysis for a Two-Camera Stereo Vision System
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A Y. J. Tejwani
%T Logical Basis in the Layered Computer Vision Systems Model
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A G. G. Pieroni
%A O. G. Johnson
%T Computer Vison System for Understanding the Movement of a Wave Field
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A R. Y. Li
%T Hough Tansform Approach for Cylinder Detection in Range Image
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A A. Semeco
%A B. Williams
%A S. Roth
%T GENSCHED: Real-World Hierarchical Planning System
%B BOOK22
$K AI09

%A R. W. McLaren
%A H.-Y. LIn
%T Knowledge-Based Approach to Ship Identification
%B BOOK22
%K AA18

%A M. Ragheb
%A D. Gvillo
%T Development of Knowledge-Based Fault Identification Systems on
Microcomputers
%B BOOK22
%K AA21

%A E. R. Addison
%T Design Issues for a Knowledge-Based Controller for a Track-While-Scan
Radar System
%B BOOK22
%K AA19

%A Z. Zhang
%A M. Simaan
%t Rule Based Supported Interpretation of Signal Images
%B BOOK22
%K AI06 AI01

%A C. L. Huang
%A J. T. Tou
%T Knwoledge-Based Functional Symbol Understanding in Electronic
Circuit Diagram Interpretation
%B BOOK22
%K AA04

%A P. E. Green
%T Resource Limitation Issues in Real-Time Intelligent Systems
%B BOOK22
%K O03

%A K. S. Gill
%T Knowledge Based System for Education and Training
%B BOOK22
%K AA07

%A S. Tulpule
%A C. Knapp
%T Classification of Textured Surfaces Based on Reflection Data
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A T. Y. Young
%A S. Gunasekaran
%T Three-Dimensional Motion Analysis Using Shape Change Information
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A A. Izaguirre
%A J. Summers
%T Analytical Identification of the Calibration Matrices Using the
Two Plane Model
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A M. Celenk
%T Gross Segmentation of Color Images of Natural Scenes for Computer
Vision Systems
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A A. Strange
%A W. A. Fraser
%A G. A. Crockett
%T Investigation of Geometric Features
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A T. MIltonberger
%A H. Muller
%T True 2D Edge Detector
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A P. Bashir
%T Textured Image Segmentation
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A F. S. Cohen
%A Z. Fan
%T Segmentation and Global Parameter Estimation of Textured Images
Modelled by Unknown Gaussian Markov Random Fields
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A M. Ragheb
%A D. Gvillo
%T Heuristic Simulation of Engineering Systems on A Supercomputer
%B BOOK22
%K H04

%A R. E. Neapoliton
%T Models for Reasoning Under Uncertainty
%B BOOK22
%K O04

%A Y. Cheng
%A R. L. Kashyap
%T Study of the Different Methods for Combining Evidence
%B BOOK22
%K O04

%A Y. J. Tejwani
%T Decision Support for Fuzzy Processes: A Prolog Assistant
%B BOOK22
%K O04 T02 AI13

%A H. Nordin
%T Using Typical Cases for Knowledge Based Consultation and
Teaching
%B BOOK22
%K AA07

%A H. Krishnamurthy
%T Conceptual Clustering Scheme for Frame-Based Knowledge Organization
%B BOOK22
%K AI04

%A L. M. Fu
%T Utility Measurement of a Decison Rule with Uncertaintly
%B BOOK22
%K O04 AI13 AI01

%A B. J. Garner
%A E. Tsui
%T Extendable Graph Processor for Knowledge Engineering
%B BOOK22

%A D. Gillies
%A A. Howson
%T Caused Based Methods of Knowledge Representation and Its Application to
Lift Scheduling
%B BOOK22

%A K. Y. Huang
%A K. S. Fu
%A Z. S. Lin
%T Automatic Linking Processing of Seismogram Using Branch and Bound
%B BOOK22
%K AA03 AI03

%A P. L. Love
%T Automatic Recognition of Primitive Changes in Manufacturing
Process Signals
%B BOOK22
%K AA05 AI06

%A R. Yoshii
%T Robust Machine Translation System
%B BOOK22
%K AI02

%A T. LI
%A L. Y. Fang
%T Computer Assisted Two-Way Diagnosis in Traditional Chinese Medicine
%B BOOK22
%K AA01

%A J. J. Cannat
%A Y. Kodratoff
%T Machine Learning and Recognition of Multifont Printed Characters
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A M. Nakashima
%A T. Koezuka
%A N. Horaoka
%A T. Inagaki
%T Automatic Pattern Recognition with Self-Learning Algorithm Based
on Featured Template Matching
%B BOOK22
%K AI04 AI06

%A L. Lafferty
%A D. Bridgeland
%T Scavenger: an Experimental Rete Compiler
%B BOOK22
%K AI01

%A A. Bandopadhay
%A D. H. Ballard
%T Visual Navigation by Tracking of Environmental Points
%B BOOK22
%K AI07  AI06

%A M. Herman
%T Fast Path Planning in Unstructured, Dynamic 3D Worlds
%B BOOK22
%K AI07

%A R. W. Harrigan
%T Sensor-Driven Robot Systems Testbed
%B BOOK22
%K AI06 AI07

%A P. G. Selfridge
%T Automatic 3D Reconstruction from Serial Section Electron Micrographs
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A F. B. Hoogterp
%A S. A. Caito
%T Knowledge Acquisition for Autonomous Navigation
%B BOOK22
%K AI06 AA18 AA19

%A T. Unti
%A C. C. Tsai
%T Optical System Alignment Using Robotics
%B BOOK22
%K AI07

%A C. Isik
%A A. Meystel
%T Structure of a Fuzzy Production System for Autonomous Robot
Control
%B BOOK22
%K AI06 AI01 O04

%A K. Bae
%T Determination of the Most Probable Point from Nonconcurrent Lines
%B BOOK22

%A B. W. Suter
%A K. D. Reilly
%T Integrated VLSI Design Environment
%B BOOK22
%K AA04

%A D. K. Fronek
%T Real-Time Computer Vision Intelligent Hardware
%B BOOK22
%K AI06 O03

%A W. J. McClay
%A P. J. MacVicar-Whelan
%T AI-Based Process Implementation
%B BOOK22
%K AA05

%A D. T. Politis
%A W. H. Licata
%T Adaptive Decoder for an Adaptive Learning Controller
%B BOOK22
%K AI04

%A M. Adjouadi
%T Discrimination of Upright Objects from Flat-Lying Objects in
Automated Guidance of Roving Robots
%B BOOK22
%K AI07

%A B. G. Gayle
%A D. Dankel
%T RxPERT: Intelligent Computer System for Drug Interactions
%B BOOK22
%K AA01

%A J. Hong
%T Extension Matrix Approach to the General Covering Problem
%B BOOK22

%A J. Dwyer
%T Transitive Model for AI Applications
%B BOOK22

%A E. T. Whitaker
%A M. N. Huhns
%T Rule-based Geometrical Reasoning for the Interpretation of Line Drawings
%B BOOK22
%K AA04 AI01 AI06

%A W. P. C. HO
%T Intelligent Computer-Aided Design by Modeling Chip Layout as a
Metaplanning Problem
%B BOOK22
%K AA04 AI09

%A D. R. Wheeler
%T Forecasting Artificial Intelligence Demand
%B BOOK22
%K AT04

%A M. Mathews
%A C. Poinsette
%T Intelligent Tutor for Elementary Spanish
%B BOOK22
%K AI02 AA07

%A C. Y. Sheu
%T Well Performed Systems
%B BOOK22

%A A. Imamiya
%A A. Kondoh
%T Embedding an Explanation System within a User Interface
%B BOOK22
%K O01 AA15 AI02

%A E. P. L. Passos
%T Prolog's Start Out in Brazil
%B BOOK22
%K T02

%A A. Hall
%T Use of Prolog in Automatic Speech Recognition
%B BOOK22
%K T02 AI05

%A B. Unger
%A S. Siegel
%T Modular Hardware which Allows Flexible Implementation of Combinations
of Vison Processing Approaches
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

------------------------------

Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: Bibliography - Robotics and Manufacturing Automation

definitions

D BOOK21 Robotics and Manufacturing Automation\
%I American Society of Mechanical Engineers\
%E M. Donath\
%E M. Leu\
%D 1986

←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←


%A R. M. Goor
%T A New Approach to Minimum-time Robot Control
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A T. Watanabe
%A M. Kametani
%A K. Kawata
%A K. Tetsuya
%T Improvement of the Computing Time of Robot Manipulators Using a
Multi-microprocessor
%B BOOK21
%K AI07 H03

%A T. Yabuta
%A T. Tsujimura
%A T. Morimitsu
%T A Manipulator Control Method Using a Shape Recognition System with an
Ultrasonic Distance Sensor
%B BOOK21
%K AI07 AI06

%A Y. Stepanenko
%T On Modal Control of Robotic Manipulators
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A J. Y. S. Luh
%A Y. L. Gu
%T Efficiency and Flexibility of Industrial Robots with Redundancy
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A G. M. Chaoui
%A W. J. Palm
%T Active Compliance Control Strategies for Robotic Assembly Applications
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A F. W. Paul
%A J. K. Parker
%T Active Industrial Robot End-effector Control Design Strategy for
Manufacturing Applications
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A J. K. Parker
%A F. W. Paul
%T Impact Force Control in Robot Hand Design
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A R. Vossoughi
%A M. Donath
%T Robot Hand Impedance Control in the Presence of Mechanical Nonlinearities
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A H. Asada
%A N. Goldfine
%T Process Analysis and Compliance Design for Grinding with Robots
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A D. Brock
%A S. Chiu
%T Environment Perception of an Articulated Robot Hand Using Contact Sensors
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A W. J. Book
%A S. L. Dickerson
%A G. Hastings
%A S. Cetinkunt
%A T. Alberts
%T Combined Approaches to Lightweight Arm Utilization
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A R. P. Singh
%A P. W. Likins
%A R. J. VanderVoort
%T Automated Dynamics and Control Analysis of Constrained Multibody System
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A D. R. Meldrum
%A M. J. Balas
%T Direct Adaptive Control of a Flexible Remote Manipulator Arm
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A D. A. Streit
%A C. M. Krousgrill
%A A. K. Bajaj
%T Dynamic Stability of Flexible Manipulators Performing Repetitive Tasks
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A M. C. Leu
%A V. Kukovski
%A K. K. Wang
%T An Analytical and Experimental Study of the Stiffness of Robot Manipulators
with Parallel Mechanisms
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A K. Youcef-Toumi
%A H. Asada
%T The Design of Arm Linkages with Decoupled and Configuration-Invariant
Inertia Tensors:  Part I: Open Kinematic Chains with Serial Drive Mechanisms
%B BOOK21
%K AI07


%A K. Youcef-Toumi
%A H. Asada
%T The Design of Arm Linkages with Decoupled and Configuration-Invariant
Inertia Tensors:  Part II: Actuator Relocation and Mass Redistribution
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A E. Vaaler
%A W. P. Seering
%T Design of a Cartesian Robot
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A O. Khatib
%A J. Burdick
%T Dynamic Optimization in Manipulator Design: The Operational Space
Formulation
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A H. West
%A H. Asada
%T Kinematic Analysis and Mechanical Advantage of Manipulators Constrained
by Contact with the Environment
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A J. M. Hollerbach
%T Evaluation of Redundant Manipulators Derived from the PUMA Geometry
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A Y.. Nakamura
%A H. Hanafusa
%T Inverse Kinematic Solutions with Singularity Robustness for Robot
Manipulator Control
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A J. A. Apkarian
%A A. A. Goldenberg
%A H. W. Smith
%T An Approach to Kinematics Control of Robot Manipulator
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A T. J. Fougere
%A S. D. Chawla
%A J. J. Kanerva
%T Robot-Sim: A CAD-based Workcell Design and Off-line Programming System
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A C. Goad
%T Robot and Vision Programming in Robocam
%B BOOK21
%K AI07 AI06

%A R. Jayaraman
%T GALOP/2D: A Graphical System for Workcell Layout Evaluation
%B BOOK21
%K AI07 AA05

%A D. Bailey
%A S. Derby
%A M. Steiner
%T Computer-integrated System for Design and Assembly of Cable Harnesses:
Part I: Design and Applications
%B BOOK21
%K AI07 AA05

%A D. Bailey
%A S. Derby
%A M. Steiner
%T Computer-integrated System for Design and Assembly of Cable Harnesses:
Part II: Algorithms
%B BOOK21
%K AI07 AA05

%A M. C. Weinstein
%A M. C. Leu
%A F. A. Infelise
%T Design and Analysis of Robotic Assembly for a Printer Compensation Arm
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A H. Asada
%A A. Fields
%T Design of Flexible Fixtures Reconfigured by Robot Manipulators
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A B. O. Wood
%A P. H. Cohjen
%A D. J. Medeiros
%A J. L. Goodrich
%T Design for Robotic Assembly
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A K. Nishimura
%A M. Nakaga
%A H. Kawasaki
%T Mechanism and Control of a Page-Turning Robot
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A H. Asada
%A S. K. Lim
%T Design of Joint Torque Sensors and Torque Feedback Control for Direct-Drive
Arms
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A J. Pawletko
%A D. Manzer
%A J. Ish-Shalom
%T A Direct-Drive Actuator for Cartesian Robots
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A R. L. Hollis
%T Design for a Planar XY Robotic Fine-Positioning Device
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂10-Mar-86  2039	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #49
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Mar 86  20:39:27 PST
Date: Mon 10 Mar 1986 13:04-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #49
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Tuesday, 11 Mar 1986      Volume 4 : Issue 49

Today's Topics:
  Bibliography - Msc. AI

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: Bibliography - Msc. AI

definitions

D BOOK19 Applications of Knowledge-Based Systems to Engineering Analysis
and Design\
%I American Society of Mechanical Engineers\
%E C. L. Dym\
%D 1986
D BOOK20 Computer-Aided/Intelligent Process Planning\
%I American Society of Mechanical Engineers\
%E C. R. Liu\
%E T. C. Cahng\
%E R. Komanduri\
%D 1986
D MAG9a IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation\
%V RA-1\
%N 4\
%D DEC 1985
D BOOK23 Hybrid Image Processing\
%I Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers\
%D 1-2 April 1986\
%N 638\
%C Orlando
D MAG9 Bulletin of the Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers\
%V 29\
%N 247\
%D 1986
D MAG10 Industrial and Process Control Magazine\
%V 59\
%N 1\
%D January 1986
D MAG11 Information and Control\
%V 65\
%N 2-3\
%D MAY-JUN 1985
D MAG12 Journal of the ACM\
%V 33\
%N 1\
%D JAN 1986
D MAG13 Robotics\
%V 1\
%N 1\
%D MAY 1985

←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←


%A W. Mark
%T Knowledge Based Interface Design
%B User Centered System Design
%E Donald A. Norman
%E Stephen W. Draper
%I Lawrence A. Erlbaum and Associates
%D 1986

%A S. J. Fenves
%T A Framework for a Knowledge-based Finite Element Analysis Assistant
%B BOOK19
%K AA05

%A F. S. Chehayeb
%A J. J. Connor
%A J. H. Slater
%T An Environment for Building Engineering Knowledge-based Systems
%B BOOK19
%K AA05

%A J. R. Dixon
%A E. C. Libardi, Jr.
%A S. C. Luby
%A M. Vaghul
%A M. K. Simmons
%T Expert Systems for Mechanical Design: Examples of Symbolic Representations of
Design Geometries
%B BOOK19
%K AA05

%A R. E. Levitt
%A J. C. Kunz
%T A Knowledge-based System for Updating Engineering Project Schedules
%B BOOK19
%K AA05

%A J. R. Zumsteg
%A D. L. Flags
%T Knowledge-based Analysis and Design Systems for Aerospace Structures
%B BOOK19
%K AA05

%A V. E. Hampel
%A B. Garner
%A J. R. Matthews
%T Intelligent Gateway Processors as Integrators of CAD/CAM Networks
%B BOOK19
%K AA05

%A S. Mittal
%A C. L. Dym
%A M. Morjaria
%T PRIDE: An Expert System for the Design of Paper-Handling Systems
%B BOOK19
%K AA05 AI01

%A D. R. Rehak
%T SITECHAR: An Expert System Component of a Geotechnical Side Characterization
Workbench
%B BOOK19
%K AA05

%A D. Pecora
%A J. R. Zumsteg
%A F. W. Crossman
%T An Application of Expert Systems to Composite Structural Design and Analysis
%B BOOK19

%A G. Eshel
%A M. Barash
%A T. C. Cahng
%T A Rule-based System for Automatic Generation of Deep-Drawing Process Outlines
%B BOOK20
%K AA05

%A Y. Lagoude
%A J. P. Tsang
%T A Plan Representation Structure for Expert Planning Systmes
%B BOOK20
%K AA05 AI01

%A R. H. Phillips
%A V. Arunthavanathan
%A X. D. Zhou
%T Symbolic Representation of CAD Data for Artificial Intelligence-based
Process Planning
%B BOOK20
%K AA05

%A V. R. Milacic
%T SAPT-Expert System for Manufacturing Processing Planning
%B BOOK20
%K AA05 AI01

%A W. Eversheim
%A J. Schultz
%T Strategies of Process Selection for Different Applications of Computer-aided
Process Planning
%B BOOK20
%K AA05

%A D. S. Nau
%A T. C. Chang
%T A Knowledge-Based Approach to Generative Process Planiing
%B BOOK20
%K AA05

%A P. M. Ferreira
%A B. Kochar
%A C. R. Liu
%A V. Chandru
%T AIFIX: An Expert System Approach to Fixture Design
%B BOOK20
%K AA05 AI01

%A E. T. Sanii
%A J. I. ElGomayel
%T Classification and Coding of Cutting Tools
%B BOOK20
%K AA05

%A H. J. Steudel
%A G. V. Tollers
%T A Decision-Table--based Guide for Evaluating Computer-Aided Processing
Planning Systems
%B BOOK20
%K AA05

%A K. Iwata
%A N. Sugimura
%T An Integrated CAD/CAPP System with Know-Hows on Machining Accuracies
of Parts
%B BOOK20
%K AA05

%A G. Eshel
%A M. Barash
%A K. S. Fu
%T Generating the Inclusive Test Rule in a Rule-based System for Process
Planning
%B BOOK20
%K AA05


%A Y. C. HO
%A X. R. Cao
%T Performance Sensitivity to Routing Changes in Queuing Networks and
Flexible Manufacturing Syustems Using Perturbation Analysis
%J MAG9
%P 165-172
%K AA05

%A R. Nigam
%A C. S. G. Lee
%T A Multiprocessor-Based Controller for the Control of Mechanical Manipulators
%J MAG9a
%P 173-182
%K AI07

%A M. Kaneko
%A M. Abe
%A K. Tanie
%T A Hexapod Walking Machine with Decoupled Freedoms
%J MAG9a
%P 183-190
%K AI07

%A M. K. Brown
%T Feature Extraction Techinques for Recognizing Solid Objects with an
Ultrasonic Range Sensor
%J MAG9a
%P 191-205
%K AI06

%A W. Holzmann
%A J. M. McCarthy
%T Computing the Friction Forces Associated with a Three-Fingered Grasp
%J MAG9a
%P 206-210
%K AI07

%A J. M. Abel
%A W. Holzmann
%A J. M. McCarthy
%T On Grasping Objects with Two Articulated Fingers
%J MAG9a
%P 211-214
%K AI07

%A H. W. Mergler
%T Review of Introduction to Robotics, by A. J. Critchlow
%J MAG9a
%P 215
%K AI07

%A A. L. Pai
%T Review of Recent Advances in Robotics, edited by G. Beni and S. Hackwood
%J MAG9a
%P 215
%K AI07

%A K. G. Lieb
%A J. C. Mendelsohn
%T Robotic Vision Tray Picking System Design Using Multiple Optical
Matched Filters
%B BOOK23
%K AI06 AI07

%A J. C. Mendelsohn
%A D. C. Englund
%T Multiple Optical Filter Design, Simulation Results
%B BOOK23
%K AI06 AI07

%A F. T. S. Yu
%A M. F. Cao
%T Automatic Real-Time Optical Pattern Recognition Processing System
%B BOOK23
%K O03 AI06

%A R. Juday
%T Optical Correlator Use at Johnson Space Center
%B BOOK23
%K AI06

%A G. Eichman
%A T. Kasparis
%T Texture Classification Using the Hough Transform
%B BOOK23
%K AI06

%A D. Casasent
%A S. Liebowitz
%T Hierarchical M-DOF Optical Artificial Intelligence Correlation Processor
%B BOOK23
%K AI06

%A G. Eichmann
%A M. Jalowsky
%T Shape Description Using an Associative Memory
%B BOOK23
%K AI06

%A B. Montgomery
%A B. V. K. Vijaya Kumar
%T Nearest Neighbor Non-iterative Error-correcting Optical Associative
Processor
%B BOOK23
%K AI06

%A D. A. Jared
%A D. J. Ennis
%T Learned Distortion Invariant Pattern Recognition Using SDFs
%B BOOK23
%K AI06

%A D. W. Sweeney
%A G. F. Schlis
%T Iteratively Designed 3D Optical Correlation Filters for Distortion Invariant
Recogniton
%B BOOK23
%K AI06

%A C. L. Tan
%A W. N. Martin
%T Hierarchical Structures, Parallelism, and Planning in Analyzing Time
Varying Images
%B BOOK23
%K AI06 AI09

%A A. A. Tvirbutas
%A C. A. McPherson
%A B. E. Hines
%T Characteristics and Limitations of Image Acquisition Systems
%B BOOK23
%K AI06

%A K. Morita
%A K. Asai
%T Fingerprint Identification Terminal for Personal Identification
%B BOOK23
%K AI06

%A V. E. Diehl
%T Use of Complementary Analog and Digital Processing in the
Removal of Local Background in Low Contrast Images
%B BOOK23
%K AI06

%A A. Oosterlinck
%T Comparison of Optical and Digital Image Processing
Techniques in Visual Inspection and Robotic Vison
%B BOOK23
%K AI07 AI06

%A M. S. Schmaltz
%A F. Caimi
%T Shift-Invariant Recognition of Deformed Ship Silhouettes at
Multiple Resolution Scales
%B BOOK23
%K AI07 AI06

%A Masaki Yokoyama
%A Hirohiko Shibuya
%A Rae-Kyung Park
%T A Basic Study of the Automated Generation of Machine Structures
(1st Report, Graphical Description of the Functional Structure of Machines)
%J MAG9
%P 295-300
%K AA05

%A Ikuo Ito
%a Takao Onozawa
%T An Intelligent Aspect of CAD for Mechanical Design
(The Conceptual Design of a Simple Object)
%J MAG9
%P 301
%K AA05

%A Lowell Hawkinson
%T LISP and LISP Machines: Tools for AI Programming
%J MAG10
%P 37
%K T01 H02

%A Rich Merritt
%T Artificial Intelligence Tackles Industrial Tasks
%J MAG10
%P 41

%A John Grant
%A Jack MInker
%T Normalization and Axiomatization for Numerical Dependencies
%J Information and Control
%V 65
%N 1
%D APR 1985
%P 1-17

%A R. Statman
%T Logical Relations and the Typed Lambda-Calculus
%J MAG11
%P 85-97
%K AI14

%A A. J. Kfoury
%T Definability by Deterministic and Non-deterministic Programs
(with Applications to First Order Dynamic Logic)
%J MAG11
%P 98-121
%K AI11 AA08 AI14

%A Nachum Dershowitz
%T Computing with Rewrite Rule Systems
%J MAG11
%P 122-157
%K AI11 AI10 AI14

%A David A. Plaisted
%T Semantic Confluence Tests and Completion Methods
%J MAG11
%P 182
%K AI11 AI10 AI14

%A K. Melhorn
%A P. Preparata
%T Routing Through a Rectangle
%J MAG12
%P 60-86
%K AA04

%A Zohar Manna
%A Richard Waldinger
%T Special Relations in Automated Deduction
%J MAG12
%P 1-59
%K AI14

%A C. S. G. Lee
%A R. C. Gonzales
%A K. S. Fu
%T Tutorial: Robotics
%I IEEE Press
%D NOV 1983
%K AT15 AI07
%X list price $39.00 member price $24.00 ISBN 0-8186-0515-4

%A Sargur N. Srihari
%T Tutorial: Computer Text Recognition and Error Correction
%I IEEE Press
%D JAN 1985
%K AI06 AT15
%X list price $36.00 member price $24.00 ISBN-0-8186-0579-0

%T Proceedings: Second Conference on Artificial Intelligence Applications
%I IEEE PRess
%D DEC 1985
%K AT15
%X list price $75.00 member price $37.50 ISBN 0-8186-06888-6

%T Proceedings: Expert Systems in Government
%I IEEE Press
%D OCT 1985
%K AT15 AI01
%X list price $70.00 member price $35.00 ISBN 0-8186-0686-X

%T Proceedings: Third Workshop on Computer Vision
%I IEEE Press
%D OCT 1985
%K AI06 AT15
%X list price $36.00 member price $18.00 ISBN-0-8186-0685-1

%T Proceedings: 1985 Symposium on Logic Programming
%I IEEE Press
%D JULY 1985
%K AI10 AT15
%X list price $44.00 member price $22.00 ISBN-0-8186-0636-3

%T Proceedings: Conference on Computer Vision & Pattern Recognition
%I IEEE Press
%D JUNE 1985
%K AI06 AT15
%X list price $66.00 member price $33.00 ISBN-0-8186-0633-9

%T Proceedings: 1985 International Conference on Robotics and Automation
%I IEEE Press
%D MAR 1985
%K AI07 AT15
%X list price $37.50 member price $18.75 ISBN-0-8186-0659-2

%T Proceedings: Workshop on the Principles of Knowledge-Based Systems
%I IEEE Press
%D DEC 1985
%K AT15
%X OUT OF PRINT

%T Proceedings: The First Conference on Artificial Intelligence
%I IEEE Press
%D DEC 1985
%K AT15
%X OUT OF PRINT

%A W. Khalil
%A J. F. Kleinfinger
%T A Working Model for the Dynamic Control of Robots (French)
%J RAIRO-AUTOMATIQUE PRODUCTIQUE INFORMATIQUE INDUSTRIELL
%D 1985
%V 19
%N 6
%P 561
%K AI07

%A R. H. Kirschbrown
%A R. C. Dorf
%T Karma--A Knowledge-Based Robot Manipulation System
%J MAG13
%P 3-12
%K AI07

%A K. G. Kempf
%T Manufacturing and Artificial Intelligence
%J MAG13
%P 13-25
%K AA05

%A R. M. Inigo
%A J. M. Angulo
%T Robotics Education in the University
%J MAG13
%P 37-47
%K AI07 AT18


%H PA
%A N. K. Gautier
%A S. S. Iyengar
%T Space and Time Efficiency of the Forest of Quadtrees Representation
%J Journal of Image and Vision Computing
%V 3
%D 1985
%P 63-70
%K AI06

%H PA
%A N. Gautier
%A S. S. Iyengar
%T Performance analysis of TID data structure
%J Proceedings of Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
%P 416-419
%D 1985
%K AI06

%H PA
%A S. Iyengar
%A V. Raman
%T Properties of the Hybrid Quadtree
%J Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Pattern Recognition
%D 1984
%P 292-294
%K AI06

%H PA
%A David Scott
%A S. S. Iyengar
%T A New Data Structure for Efficient Storing of Images
%J Pattern Recognition Letters
%V 3
%D 1985
%P 211-214
%K AI06

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂11-Mar-86  2017	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #50
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Mar 86  20:16:50 PST
Date: Tue 11 Mar 1986 15:10-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #50
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Wednesday, 12 Mar 1986     Volume 4 : Issue 50

Today's Topics:
  Queries - AI Military Successes & GNU Scheme,
  Linguistics - Ambiguous Sentences & Dictionary Access,
  Journal - International Journal for AI in Engineering & Prices,
  Methodoloy - Turing Test & Zen

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 86 13:47:15 EST
From: "Dr. Ron Green" (ARO) <green@BRL.ARPA>
Subject: AI Military Successes

I would like to recieve detailed information on any systems that
have been developed for the military using AI.  These should not be
toy systems and they must be able to be shown to be successful.

I would prefer programs conducted for the Army but I would be interested
in discussing any service programs.

Thanks
Ron

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 86 08:52:43 -0100
From: dual!lll-crg!seismo!unido!gmdzi!thomas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
      (Thomas Gordon)
Subject: GNU Scheme


        I'm interested in Scheme for Unix.  Can you tell me how to order
GNU?  Thanks for your help.

        Tom Gordon
        thomas@gmdzi

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Mar 86 10:01:18 pst
From: sdcsvax!sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!ice@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: ambiguous sentences

        I'm not sure that this is precisely what you are looking for,
but I remember a sentence whose meaning changes slightly when different
words are stressed:

I never said he stole that money.
I NEVER said he stole that money.
I never SAID he stole that money.
I never said HE stole that money.
I never said he STOLE that money.
I never said he stole THAT money.
I never said he stole that MONEY.

--Doug Ice.

------------------------------

Date: 06 Mar 86 18:43:18 UT (Thu)
From: "A. N. Walker" <anw%maths.nottingham.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: ambiguous sentences

        English is supposed to be right associative, so "pretty little
girls school" is (relatively) unambiguously a pretty schoolette for
girls.  Similarly, "second hand book shop" should probably be as opposed
to a third automatic drug store.  The other possible associations should
be obtained by hyphenation or concatenation, as "second handbook shop",
"second-hand book shop" or [the usual meaning] "secondhand-book shop".
Sadly, English has no good way of writing a third-level bracket, so
more complicated examples can be very hard to write down.

        Andy Walker,
        Maths Dept, Nottingham Univ., UK.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 86 11:34 EST
From: ART@GODOT.THINK.COM
Subject: Ambiguous Sentences


One of my favorites, which I seem to remember first
reading in the instructions for solving the Atlantic
magazine puzzle is:  "I fancy you have one." which
has more meanings when spoken than when written.

Art Medlar  <art@think>
Thinking Machines Corporation

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 86 12:59:00 est
From: amsler@mouton.ARPA (Robert Amsler at mouton.ARPA)
Subject: Dictionary access

The latest information I have re: Wang's Lexical resources is
that they want a $10,000 one time fee plus $1,000/year per
resource. For that kind of money I thought there should be
some sort of update/maintenance, but apparently they are selling
them as is with no support and little documentation.

Houghton-Mifflin apparently also sells access to machine-readable
dictionaries and they appear to offer professional support for
updating them tied to their routine dictionary production.

If applications are academic non-profit use, the recommended
source would be the Oxford Archive in England. They distribute
several sources at the cost of making the tape copies.

Generally, the commercial sources offering dictionaries for free
have dried up. It is a business now. One might be able to strike
a deal with some publisher, but ``free'' access is becoming
increasingly rare if the intended use is commercial development.

------------------------------

Date: Wed 5 Mar 86 18:42:28-EST
From: SRIDHARAN@G.BBN.COM
Subject: Journal prices hit the moon!

In today's mail I received the announcement of a new journal called
International Journal for AI in engineering.  Nice flashy brochure
and an international editorial board.  I like the idea of a journal
appealing to several engineering disciplines and talking about practical
results in AI applications.

It will be published 4 times a year and the subscription is $130.

Will those taking part in new publishing ventures do something to keep
prices down?

Most of the work that goes into publishing a journal is done by the
researchers who produce the results and spend the effort in writing
a paper.  The editorial board donates their time.  The reviewers also
contribute their time.  Why should all these folks make these contributions
so that the publishers can cream the market?  It is time to take a stand.
The publishing industry is here to serve us; not to skin us.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 86 20:17:28 pst
From: aurora!eugene@riacs.arpa (Eugene miya)
Subject: Re: The Turing Test - A Third Quantisation?

Turing in fact did propose that in his paper: that a machine could
try a discrimination of two players.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Res. Ctr.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 8 Mar 86 11:00:34 est
From: decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!harvard!gcc-milo!zrm@ucbvax.berkelely.edu
      (Zigurd R. Mednieks)
Subject: Re: Alan Watts on AI


The excerpt from Alan Watts is instructive. Like many who do not have
the patience to look into their own examples, he claims the source of
his hair is unfathomable and so the source of our thoughts is equally
out of our reach. He should speak only for himself. I know, to a
certain extent, how my hair grows.

Even worse, Watts clouds the issue. There is a valid point in that
even though I know how it is that I have hair, I can't alter the way
it grows. Similarly, even if I knew in great detail the causes of my
thoughts and ideas, I might not be able to alter their course.

Perhaps Zen just isn't relevent to AI.

-Zigurd

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 86 21:33:53 -0100
From: decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!mcvax!inria!neumann@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
      (Pierre Louis Neumann)
Subject: Re: Alan Watts on AI

forgive my english!
there is an intellectual knowledge (more typically western) and a corporal
one . One must "find " his proper way and place (in between) in order to
KNOW.
     This place is the "dawn" or the "twilight"

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂12-Mar-86  1530	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #51
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Mar 86  15:30:34 PST
Date: Wed 12 Mar 1986 10:49-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #51
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Wednesday, 12 Mar 1986     Volume 4 : Issue 51

Today's Topics:
  Query - Graphical Representation,
  News - Turbo Prolog & TI Explorer, Apollo, and Sun Workstations &
    AI Hardware Vendor Slugout

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 86 13:16 EST
From: "Steven H. Gutfreund" <GUTFREUND%umass-cs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Request for information

I am looking for a reference. Is there some work that attempts to
produce a comprehensive study of graphical representation (schematics)
that are used by professionals. Examples would be architects, systems
analysts, industrial designers, and logistic planners. There are,
of course, civil engineers who actually go and construct scale models
of things like dams, etc, and conduct their analysis on them. But I
am looking for people who use 2-d and multidimensional paper schematics
for their analyses. Especially interesting are schematics which are not
just passive, but allow the user to carry out graphical analysis on
that chart. Something on the order of a fileVision, except that fileVision
only does data queries.

                                        - Steven Gutfreund
                                          gutfreund@umass-cs.csnet

  [I doubt that there is a comprehensive survey, but there are some
  partial ones.  Woodworth's >>Graphical Simulation<<  has a large
  section on algebraic geometry, graphical methods for solving
  differential equations, etc.  I have seen books on nomograms and
  a recent book (by James Martin?) on the flowcharts and other diagrams
  used by programmers.  Control theorists (but not the theoretical
  ones!) use pole-zero charts and other graphical aids.  Statisticians
  use X-Bar/R charts to track quality control, Roman/Latin/etc. squares
  to plan experiments, and occassionally dependency graphs to model
  causal or correlational linkages.  Logicians and circuit designers
  use Venn diagrams and Karnaugh maps.  There are books on visual thinking
  and on graphs and other displays for information transfer.  Two recent
  books are >>The Elements of Graphing<< by William S. Cleveland and
  >>The Visual Display of Quantitative Information<< by Edward R. Tufte.
  Does anyone know of other particularly good surveys?  -- KIL]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 86 01:32 EST
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: turbo prolog (again)


Ken and Chuck,

I sent the following message about a newly announced prolog compiler
which did not show up in either mailing list.

   From: Tim Finin <Tim@UPenn> on Thu  6 Mar 1986 at 15:51, 13 lines
   To:   AIlist@sri-ai, PROLOG-REQUEST%su-score.arpa@CSNET-RELAY
   Subj: Turbo Prolog
   Date: Thu, 6 Mar 86 15:51 EST

   Someone gave me a copy of a news item from Electronic Engineering Times of
   March 3rd which describes a Prolog compiler for PCs that Borland Int.
   (of Turbo Pascal fame) is releasing on April 15th.  According to the note,
   the price will be $99.  Borland claims that it was clocked at 100K lips on
   an IBM-PC and 300K lips on an AT! (The benchmark used was described as "a
   single rule benchmark").  The dialect is described as "a superset of
   Clocksin and Mellish".

   The system appears to include an incremental compiler, screen editor,
   support for windowing, a module capability, sound primitives and color
   graphics primitives.

I assume you both thought it was too much of a plug for a new compiler with
little real significance.  I disagree!  It is significant for one of two
reasons, as I explain below.  Note first that:

        1 - Borland is a respected company making  software for micros.
            Their products, especailly Turbo Pascal, are quite good, widely
            used and very cheap.  I've seen it claimed that over 500,000
            copies of Turbo Pascal have been sold!
        2 - Their prolog compiler seems to be reasonable from the point of
            view of features.
        3 - It's claimed to provide a ORDER OF MAGNITUDE improvement on
            performance.  The other PC based prolog compiler claim to run
            on the order of 10K to 20K Lisp, I think.
        4 - They are claiming to sell it at an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE less price
            than the other prolog compilers for PCs.

Now - the reasons: either (1) Borland has discovered some very clever tricks
to producing much better compiled code from standard prolog or (2) they are
not playing the benchmarking game fairly.  I tend to lean toward (2) but
hope that there may be a fair amount of (1) involved as well.  If Turbo
Pascal weren't such a win, I'd have little hope.  On the pessimistic side,
Robert Rubinoff sent me the following back-of-the-envelope analysis:

     From: Robert Rubinoff <Rubinoff@UPenn> on Fri  7 Mar 1986 at 10:28,
     To:   Tim Finin <Tim@UPenn>
     Subj: Turbo Prolog

     100 Klips = .1MHZ.  Now assuming that they are only using code within
     one segment (which limits you to 64K), the 8088 takes about 3 cycles
     for the average register instruction, and about 10-15 cycles + memory
     fetch time for a memory instruction.  Memory fetches take a few cycles;
     I can't find where it says how much; so let's say that it's just enough
     to push the average instruction time up to 15 cycles.  If 2 out of 3
     instructions are register instructions, we get an average of 21/3 or 7
     cycles per instruction. (I think my calculations here are probably a
     little low).

     So if we have a 4MHz 8088, we get an instruction rate of 0.5MHz, or 5
     instructions per lip.  On an 8MHZ 8088, we get 10 instructions per
     inference. That strikes me as not enough.  Maybe they're using a
     benchmark that doesn't do any unification.

     And all of this (at least on the 8088 in the PC, I don't know about the
     AT) requires that everything be in the same segment.  If you want more
     than 64K, you have to go to multiple segments, which slows things down
     a lot.

     I'm dubious. But we'll see, I guess.

     Robert

Anyway, when a respectable, established company offers a basic AI tool which
jumps TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE on the price/performance scale, I think its
news!  If a few months we'll either be praising the cleverness of the
Borland programmers or cursing the dishonesty of the Borland marketing
people.

Tim

  [Actually, Tim's message was simply the victim of "digest delay"
  and of my recent full schedule.  It had come to the head of the
  queue and would have been sent out today in any case.  Most messages
  are redistributed within a week, although humor and "special issue"
  messages are sometimes saved for two weeks in order to collect a
  sufficient number on the same topic.  Authors of "commercial
  messages" which must be rejected will receive a note from me
  (unless the message has already gone out on UUCP net.ai).  Tim's
  message is well within the limits of acceptability (and usefulness --
  thanks, Tim!).  The posting which follows is more dubious, but seems
  to be forwarded in a spirit of helpfulness rather than commercial PR.
  A discussion has just started on WorkS, Human-Nets, and Large-List-People
  that may redefine the limits of acceptability, particularly with respect
  to including price information.  (While price is obviously an important
  spec, it has been one of the touchstones for identifying messages
  with commercial intent.)  -- KIL]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 11 Mar 86 08:56 ???
From: "JERRY R. BROOKSHIRE" <BROOKSHIR%ti-eg.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: News Item:  TI Explorer, Apollo, and Sun Workstations

The following extracts are from the Texas Instruments
internal electronic news system:

T   LE;NEWS.TI.PRODUCTS.A.P01                                          SLE01
MON., MAR. 10, 1986           PRODUCTS AND TECHNOLOGY                 SECTION A


             TI, APOLLO(R) PROPOSE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ALLIANCE

AUSTIN, TEXAS - Texas Instruments and Apollo Computer Inc. today announced the
intention to enter into marketing, sales and development programs aimed at
bringing "next generation" artificial intelligence (AI) technology to the
engineering workstation market. A letter of intent signed by both companies now
lays the groundwork for the formation of a relationship that would bring TI's
leadership in AI technology to Apollo's industry-leading technical workstation.
   As a first step in the proposed alliance, the companies plan to embark on a
cooperative development effort to integrate TI's Explorer(TM) LISP machine into
Apollo's DOMAIN(R) networking environment, allowing AI application developers
using Explorer to coexist on a network of  Apollo workstation users.  The
announcement comes shortly after Apollo's introduction of a new line of DOMAIN
workstation products.
   "Apollo views AI, like graphics, as a technology that is key to a broad
range of technical application areas," said Roland Pampel, Apollo's senior vice
president of technology and marketing.
   "When Apollo pioneered the workstation marketplace, the DOMAIN system's
integrated graphics capabilities provided a new dimension for application
developers," said Pampel.  "We believe that AI will offer a similar leap in
application development capabilities and user productivity."
   W. Joe Watson, vice president of TI's Data Systems Group, explained, "TI
has made substantial investments to build a strong AI technology base and
DSG's commercial AI products have rapidly achieved significant market success.
Teaming up with strong system vendors like Apollo will be a major step toward
expanding the use of our advanced technology in the technical computing market-
place."
   Paul Armstrong, Apollo group manager of AI, said, "Many of our customers
and solution suppliers are actively seeking ways to exploit AI technology in a
variety of areas.  We are pleased to work with TI in managing the transition to
a new generation of computing."
   TI houses one of the largest AI research and development centers in the
world and is a leader in the internal application of AI technologies.

T   LE;NEWS.TI.PRODUCTS.A.P03                                          SLE01
MON., MAR. 10, 1986           PRODUCTS AND TECHNOLOGY                 SECTION B

                    TI AND SUN TO LINK AI AND UNIX WORKSTATIONS

AUSTIN, TEXAS - Texas Instruments and Sun Mircosystems(R) announced today that
TI will implement Sun Microsystem's Network File System (NFS) on its
Explorer(TM) artificial intelligence (AI) workstation.  The NFS implementation
will allow transparent access to files on Sun's UNIX(TM)-based workstation and
TI's LISP-based Explorer system, providing users with a development environ-
ment that includes both AI and UNIX tools on the same network.
   "NFS provides a solution to customers who want to add the Explorer's symbol-
ic processing capability to a network of Sun technical workstations running
under UNIX," said DSG vice president W. Joe Watson.  "The combination of these
two complementary computers on a network provides a significant new offering
to industry."
   Independent of machine type and operating system, NFS increases the useful-
ness of a local area network by allowing users to easily share information
between computers from different vendors.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 86 12:46 PST
From: sigart@LOGICON.ARPA
Subject: AI HARDWARE VENDOR SLUGOUT (SDSIGART & IEEE)


         San Diego SIGART and San Diego IEEE Computer Society
                            present an

                   "AI HARDWARE VENDOR SLUGOUT"


ABOUT THE PROGRAM...Artificial Intelligence(AI) hardware is expensive. AI
hardware vendors are numerous and not in general substitutable.  But AI
hardware must be bought to competein the growing AI/expert-systems market.
This vendor gathering will allow participating vendors to describe and
display their wares, challenge each other, and be challenged by the audience.
There will be ample time for individual discussions with vendors.

ABOUT THE PARTICIPANTS...Expected participants include Symbolics Inc.,
Lisp Machine Inc.(LMI), Texas Instruments(TI) and Apollo.

TIME/PLACE...Sunday, March 23, 2:00pm at the Mandeville Auditorium at UCSD.
(parking is free and plentiful on Sundays.)

RESERVATIONS/INFORMATION...Reservations are not required.  For further
information contact Bart Kosko, (619)457-5550 or Ed Weaver (619)236-5963.

ADMISSION IS FREE.

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂13-Mar-86  1446	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #52
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Mar 86  14:45:14 PST
Date: Thu 13 Mar 1986 10:31-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #52
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Thursday, 13 Mar 1986      Volume 4 : Issue 52

Today's Topics:
  Query - Satishe Thatte Net Address,
  Seminars - Interpretation of Prolog Programs (Edinburgh) &
    Explanation-Based Learning (CMU) &
    Referential Gestures in Guugu Yimidhirr (UCB) &
    Models, Metaphysics, and Empiricism (CSLI),
  Conference - Expert Systems in Process Safety

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 86 21:53:26 PST
From: Basuki Soetarman <basuki@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU>
Subject: Satishe Thatte net address ...

>
>          PERSISTENT OBJECT SYSTEM FOR SYMBOLIC COMPUTERS
>               Satishe Thatte
>               Texas Instruments
>               Thurs. Feb 27th at 4:15 pm.
>               (Part of Distributed Systems Group Project meeting)
>
>The advent of automatically managed, garbage-collected virtual memory
>was crucial to the development of today's symbolic processing.  No
>analogous capability has yet been developed in the domain of
>"persistent" objects managed by a file system or database.  As a
>consequence, the programmer is forced to flatten rich structures of
> ...............................

This announcement was posted sometimes ago in the mod.ai. Does anybody
know the author's net address ? Any info will be appreciated.
Thanks.


basuki@locus.ucla.edu     or
..!{ucbvax,cepu,trwspp,ihnp4}!ucla-cs!basuki

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 11 Mar 86 11:58:47 GMT
From: Gideon Sahar <gideon%edai.edinburgh.ac.uk@ucl-cs.arpa>
Subject: Seminar - Interpretation of Prolog Programs (Edinburgh)

EDINBURGH AI SEMINARS

Date:   Wednesday, 12th March l986
Time:   2.00 p.m.
Place:  Department of Artificial Intelligence
        Seminar Room - F10
        80 South Bridge
        EDINBURGH.

Dr. C.S. Mellish, Cognitive Studies Programme, University of Sussex
will give a seminar entitled  -  "Interpretation of Prolog Programs".


This talk discusses work on proving properties of Prolog programs,
which has been able to derive automatically the following information:

l.  Mode declarations (information about the instantiation modes in
    which predicates are used).

2.  Determinacy information (information about the number of solutions
    that predicates can produce).

3.  Information about shared structures (this can be used, for
    instance, to indicate places where "occur checks" might be
    desirable.

We would like to formalise our work on Prolog programs in terms of
ABSTRACT INTERPRETATIONS.   The notion of using abstract
interpretations to prove properties of programs has been used
successfully with other languages (e.g. work by Cousot and Cousot,
Mycroft and Sintzoff).   The basic idea is to start with a precise
description of the meaning of Prolog programs in terms of the normal
execution strategy.   This description can then be given the STANDARD
INTERPRETATION, which characterises exactly what and how the program
computes but may not allow interesting properties to be proved in a
computationally feasible way.   Alternatively, it can be given
consistent ABSTRACT INTERPRETATIONS, in which the program is thought of
as computing in an abstract domain where less information about the
data objects is taken account of.   Results of computations in this
abstract domain then reflect properties of the program operating in the
standard way.

------------------------------

Date: 12 March 1986 1133-EST
From: Betsy Herk@A.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Seminar - Explanation-Based Learning (CMU)

Speaker:   Gerald DeJong, University of Illinois
Date:      Wednesday, April 2 (Note special day/time)
Place:     5409 Wean Hall
Time:      11:30 - 1:00
Title:     Explanation Based Learning

                        Abstract:

               The schema learning  group  at  Illinois  is  exploring
          artificial  intelligence  techniques that will enable a com-
          puter system to learn general world knowledge in   the  form
          of  "schemata"  through  its  interactions  with an external
          environment.  A schema is a data structure  that  specifies,
          in  conceptual  terms,  a  particular  real world situation.
          Schemata can be very  useful  in  problem  solving,  natural
          language  processing and other AI areas.   It is claimed, in
          this paradigm, that much intelligent behavior  can  be  cap-
          tured by using a large number of such schemata.

               The explanation-based  method  represents  a  departure
          from  the  usual  approaches  to machine learning in several
          ways.  First, it is very knowledge-based.  That is, the sys-
          tem  must  possess  much  knowledge before it can aquire new
          knowledge.  Second, it is  capable  of  one-trial  learning.
          The  results so far are promising.  Explanation-based learn-
          ing takes us a large step closer to building an  intelligent
          system capable of learning on its own.

               A number computer systems have been designed and imple-
          mented   based   on   Explanatory   Schema  Acquisition,  an
          explanation-based learning paradigm.  The  domain  areas  of
          these   projects include natural language processing, robot-
          ics, theorem proving,  physics  problem-solving  and  theory
          refinement.   Several  of  the systems will be discussed  in
          the context of theoretical advantages and difficulties  with
          explanation-based learning.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 86 16:33:14 PST
From: admin%cogsci@berkeley.edu (Cognitive Science Program)
Subject: Seminar - Referential Gestures in Guugu Yimidhirr (UCB)

                    BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM

                                Spring 1986

                    Cognitive Science Seminar - IDS 237B

                      Tuesday, March 18, 11:00 - 12:30
                              2515 Tolman Hall
                          Discussion: 12:30 - 1:30
                          3105 Tolman (Beach Room)

              ``Complex Referential Gestures in Guugu Yimidhirr''
                               John B. Haviland
             Dept. of Anthropology, Australian National University
    (currently at Institute for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences)


            Ordinary  talk  depends  on  interlocutors'  abilities  to
       construct  and maintain some degree of shared perspective  over
       some  domain   of   shared  knowledge,  given  some  negotiated
       understanding  of what  the  circumstances are. Aspects of per-
       spective,  references  to   universes   of    discourse,    and
       pointers  to context are, of  course,  encoded  in  utterances.
       Routinely, though,  what  is  uttered   interacts   with   what
       remains   unsaid:   what   is  otherwise indicated, or what  is
       implicated  by  familiar   conversational  principles.  I  will
       begin  by  examining  the elaborate linguistic devices one Aus-
       tralian  language  provides  for  talking  about  location  and
       motion.  I  will  then connect the linguistic representation of
       space (and the  accompanying knowledge speakers  must  have  of
       space  and  geography)  to non-spoken devices --- pointing ges-
       tures --- that contribute to the bare referential   content  of
       narrative  performances. I will show that simply parsing a nar-
       rative, or tracking its course, requires attention to the  ges-
       ticulation  that  forms part of the process of utterance. More-
       over,  I  will  show  how,  in  this ethnographic context,  the
       meaning  of  a  gesture (or of  a  word,  for  that matter) may
       depend both on a practice of referring (only within which   can
       pointing  be pointing at something) and on the construction  of
       a  complex and shifting conceptual (often social) map.  Finally
       I   will   discuss   ways  that  the  full  import of a gesture
       (again, like a word) may, in context,  go  well  beyond  merely
       establishing its referent.

------------------------------

Date: Wed 12 Mar 86 16:31:56-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - Models, Metaphysics, and Empiricism (CSLI)

         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


            CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR NEXT THURSDAY, March 20, 1986
             12 noon, TINLunch, Ventura Hall Conference Room

           Models, Metaphysics and the Vagaries of Empiricism
                          by Marx W. Wartofsky
              Discussion led by Ivan Blair (Blair@su-csli)


      In the introduction to the collection of his articles from which
   the paper for this TINlunch is taken, Wartofsky says that his concern
   is with `the notion of representation, and in particular, the role and
   nature of the model, in the natural sciences, in theories of
   perception and cognition, and in art.'  In `Meaning, Metaphysics and
   the Vagaries of Empiricism,' he explores the existential commitment
   that should accompany the creation and use of a model, from the
   perspective of a critical empiricism.  Wartofsky considers six grades
   of existential commitment, or ways of construing the ontological
   claims of a model, ranging from the ad hoc analogy to a true
   description of reality.  Critical of the attempt by empiricists to
   reduce theoretical statements to assertions about sense perception,
   Wartofsky seeks to ground existence claims in what he calls the common
   understanding, which is associated with everyday language
   representations of experience.
      I intend the issues addressed in this article to provide the
   framework for a general discussion of the relation between ontology
   and epistemology.

------------------------------

Date: Mon 10 Mar 86 15:26:13-EST
From: V. Venkatasubramanian <VENKAT@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject: Conference - Expert Systems in Process Safety


                        CALL FOR PAPERS

                        for the sessions on

      EXPERT SYSTEMS AND COMPUTATIONAL METHODS IN PROCESS SAFETY

        American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) Meeting

                Houston, Texas, March 29 - April 2 1987.


Session Chair:                             Session Co-Chair:

Prof. V. Venkatasubramanian                Prof. E. J. Henley
Intelligent Process Engineering Lab        Dept. of Chemical Engineering
Dept. of Chemical Engineering              University of Houston
Columbia University                        University Park
New York, NY 10027.                        Houston, TX 77004.
Tel: (212)280-4453                         (713)749-4407



Papers  are solicited in the areas of Expert Systems and Computational
Methods in Process Safety for the Houston AIChE Meeting. Topics of
interest include  Process Plant Diagnosis, Process Safety and
Reliability, Process Risk Analysis etc. Please submit THREE copies of
a 300 word abstract by MAY 15, 1986 to the following address:


        Prof. V. Venkatasubramanian
        Intelligent Process Engineering Lab
        Dept. of Chemical Engineering
        Columbia University
        New York, NY 10027.
        Tel: (212)280-4453

Final manuscripts of the accepted papers are due by Oct 15, 1986.

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂13-Mar-86  1828	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #53
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Mar 86  18:28:16 PST
Date: Thu 13 Mar 1986 10:47-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #53
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Thursday, 13 Mar 1986      Volume 4 : Issue 53

Today's Topics:
  Journals - Prices,
  Philosophy - Dreyfus Debate & Style of Argument & Zen & Turing Test

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed 12 Mar 86 11:02:42-PST
From: PHayes@SRI-KL
Subject: Journal Prices

re. journal prices. The intended audience isn't impoverished academics but
corporate research libraries.  Like everyone else in the commercial world,
publishers are out to make money, not serve a community.  The way to deal
with such people is to charge them money for one's services, rather than
donate one's time.  Academics typically donate time to editorial boards in
order to serve the academic community, and use time writing papers in order
to promote their own reputations.  When the publishing game starts
going beyond this traditional framework, it becomes commercial journalism.
How about forming an AI researchers society ( a la AMA ) which will set a scale
of fees which publishers should pay for papers to print?
pat hayes

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 86 16:36:21 pst
From: ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin)
Subject: References


(ladkin
 [Dreyfus's] major argument is that
 there are some areas of human experience related to intelligence
 which do not appear amenable to machine mimicry.

(joly)
Could these areas be named exactly? Agreed that there are emotional
aspects that cannot be programmed into a machine, what parts of the
``human experience related to intelligence'' will also remain out-
side of the machine's grip?

In answer to your first,

a) In *What Computers Can't Do*, there is the example of the
phenomenology of perception, as studied in gestalt psychology.
In particular, the whole issue of wholes being perceived before
parts.

b) In his recent Stanford talk, he mentioned the extreme
emotional content of Bobby Fischer's chess playing, and
conjectured that the emotions might be connected with the
*success* of his playing.

Given that an emotional component may be a part of successful
expert behaviour in some cases, this also addresses your
second question.

Peter Ladkin

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 86 18:19:19 pst
From: ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin)
Subject: Russell on Dreyfus

After reading Stuart Russell's commentary on Dreyfus's talk,
I could hardly believe I'd heard the same talk that he had.

A summary:

Dreyfus is arguing that the rule-based expert system paradigm
cannot, in some cases, codify the behaviour of an expert.
They may be able to reproduce the behaviour
of a proficient practitioner (in his taxonomy) who is not an
expert (e.g. chess programs). He allows that there are some
domains where a rule-based system may fare better than a human
(and mentioned the backgammon program, but was corrected by
members of the audience who said it wasn't nearly as good as
he had been led to believe).

The concept of expert behaviour as internalised rules goes
back to Plato, and he can trace the influence of this idea
through Descartes and Kant, even to Husserl. He believes
it is fundamentally mistaken, and provided few arguments in
the talk (some of them may be found in *What Computers Can't Do*).

He presented a proposal for a taxonomy of skilled behaviour,
which is consistent with the phenomenology of the domain,
and which he believes is a testable conjecture for explaining
skilled behaviour. This he credits to his brother Stuart.
He illustrated some of the ideas from the domain of
driving a car (it was originally a study of pilot skills
for the Air Force).

He discussed at some length his experiments with Julio
Kaplan, a former Junior World Champion at chess. He
regards the conclusions they would wish to draw as
*an anecdote* [his words] because of the difficulty of
obtaining suitable subjects to perform controlled
experimants. Most highly expert chess players
(grand masters?) are so concerned with the game
that their concentration is hard to break. Kaplan is an
exception, and they are able to get him to concentrate on
counting beeps while playing. Others, he said, tend to
ignore the test in favor of the game.

Dreyfus thinks the current connectionist work
is exciting, and may have possibilities that the rule-based
*Traditional AI* [his words] work does not have.
[End of summary].

I address some of Russell's points, omitting the loaded
terminology in which they are expressed, and some of Russell's
less professional speculations. I use his numbering.

1) The discussion was free of dissent because there was
little to disagree with. He's not submitting a cognitive
model for AI as a whole, he's addressing expert systems,
and claiming (as he has done for many years) that not all
expert behaviour admits of rule-based mimicry.

2) I have been unable to find a reference to Dreyfus
believing *human experts solve problems by accessing a
store of cached, generalised solutions*, probably because
that is not a reasonable representation of his views.
It is certainly not consistent with the views in *What...*.

3) His view that humans use *intuitive matching processes
based on total similarity* is argued in *What...* with
evidence from the domain of gestalt psychology. It's
surprising that Russell thought he couldn't be more specific,
as he had been 7 years ago. I suspect inexact communication.

4) Russell says, referring to the above, that
*this mechanism doesn't work*. This is a misapprehension.
Dreyfus is referring to a phenomenon, observed
by some researchers. I presume Russell is denying the
existence of this phenomenon, without argument.
Dreyfus does make the claim that whatever mechanism may
be underlying the phenomenon cannot be implemented in
a rule-based system. (Is this the same as *a system which
uses symbolic descriptions*? After all, I am such a system,
witness the present posting.)

A quick re-reading of *What....* has convinced me that
many contributors to this debate have not read it carefully
for its arguments. I recommend reading it if you haven't
done so. Incidentally, it is truly embarrassing to see
some of the quotations from pre-1979 AI workers.
Surely, no-one could have said those things.....but then,
that's why he wrote the book, and our current attitudes
have been molded in part by the resulting debate.

Peter Ladkin

------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 86 14:42 EST
From: WAnderson.wbst@Xerox.COM
Subject: Ad Hominem Arguments

Re: Stuart Russell <RUSSELL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>, "Addressing some of
Dreyfus' specific points."

One problem I have with Mr. Russell's remarks (and also with many other
remarks made about Messrs. Dreyfus' comments on AI) is their ad hominem
aspects.  I think that Mr. Russell raises several worthwhile points, but
that his style is not conducive to reasoned discussion.  Rather than
explaining what Prof. Dreyfus seems to be doing, or not doing, vis-a-vis
AI research, it is better simply to criticise the ideas themselves. So,
if the model Prof. Dreyfus would use to explain expert behavior is an
old one, then simply say so, and give some detailed references to it,
and to subsequent critiques of it.  Surely this is better than going on
about how he behaves, or what he seems to believe about the originality
of his own work, etc.  Of course, Mr Russell may wish to criticize Prof.
Dreyfus' style and personality.  If this is the case, then please say so
right off.

Furthermore, if it seems that Prof. Dreyfus is making ad hominem
statements then the only reasonable response is to point that out, and
then be done with it.  More of the same does not improve the quality of
the discussion.

Finally a personal note: I have not always kept the counsel I present
above; but I am trying more and more to do so.  I think it is the only
way to make substantial progress in any discussion.

Bill Anderson

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 86 12:06:14 GMT
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Alan Watts on AI

> From AIList Vol 4 # 50

``Perhaps Zen just isn't relevent to AI.''

It's not relevant to motorcycle maintenance either.

Gordon Joly
aka
The Joka
ARPA: gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Mar 86 13:54:20 GMT
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: A Two-Headed Tale for Zaphod Beeblebrox.

Thanks to Eugene  Miya (Vol 4 # 50) for  pointing out that Turing had
proposed a machine system  could act as the adjudicator.  I have also
been made aware,  by Eugene's message,  that the original Turing test
involves two parties - man/woman or  (wo)man/machine -  as well as an
adjudicator ( - "The Imitation Game").
The initial  discussion,  ie is it  possible  to decide on  man/woman
differences of  *intelligence*,  really  does begin to  look slightly
strange, especially  in the light of Turing's own sexual orientation.
In terms of  experience  of sex, man and  woman differ fundamentally.
However, in terms  of ``human experience related  to intelligence'',
(see Vol 4 # 41), is there any difference between man and woman?
Given that the  Imitation Game now seems suspect (to me),  what about
the extension to  (wo)man/machine comparison?  Surely the differences
of  ``experience''  and  hence  ``intelligence'', between (wo)man and
machine,  must  be  open to  examination  by a *suitably  intelligent
adjudicator*? Hmmm... (getting a bit recursive...)

``Life, don't talk to me about life!'' - Marvin the Paranoid Android.

This quotation  is  from  "The Hitch-Hikers Guide  to the Galaxy"  by
Douglas Adams.  He sees the Planet Earth  as a giant AI system, which
is trying to find a The Question to The Ultimate Answer. Nice one.
The  Earth  system was designed by  Deep Thought, the computer  which
came up with The Answer - 42.

Gordon Joly
ARPA: gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂14-Mar-86  1410	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #54
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Mar 86  14:09:59 PST
Date: Fri 14 Mar 1986 10:42-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #54
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Friday, 14 Mar 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 54

Today's Topics:
  Query - NL Interfaces,
  AI Tools - Graphical Methods,
  Bindings - Jim Hendler,
  News - Herb's New Honour,
  Policy - TI Press Release,
  Review - Spang Robinson Report, March 1986,
  Linguistics - Ambiguous Sentences & Associativity

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu 13 Mar 86 13:12:43-PST
From: BORISON@SRI-KL.ARPA
Subject: NL Interfaces

Does anyone know of any companies that use Intellect or Ramis II/English
and who I could contact at these companies to learn how they're being used?
Any ideas will be greatly appreciated.

------------------------------

Date: Thu 13 Mar 86 08:48:15-CST
From: Donald Blais <CC.BLAIS@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Request for information

        SPACE ADJACENCY ANALYSIS by Edward T. White

... has information on some of the 2-d paper schematics used
by architects.  The book is in use for an architecture course
at the University of Hawaii.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 86 19:21:24 EST
From: Jim Hendler <hendler@brillig.umd.edu>
Subject: binding

Jim Hendler can now be found at
 the University of Maryland, College Park
 Computer Science Department
 College Park, Md. 20742
 (hendler@maryland Arpa)

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 86 08:56:08 EST
From: Guojun.Zhang@ML.RI.CMU.EDU
Subject: Herb's New Honour

           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


According to a report from Pittsburgh Gazette, Prof. Herbert Simon received
the National Medal of Science from President Reagan yesterday afternoon at
White House. Congratulations to Dr. Simon!

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Mar 86 12:03:37 EST
From: Frank Ritter <ritter@BBN-LABS-B.ARPA>
Subject: Re: TI press release

I find the direct quote (actually the whole press release) from TI's
press release objectionable.  A summary would have been more appropriate,
and that it was direct from TI (the land of AI hype) I think violates the
spirit of AI-List.

Frank

------------------------------

Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: Spang Robinson Report, March 1986

Summary of The Spang Robinson Report Volume 2, Number 3, March 1986

Discussion of the prospectus' of Teknowledge and Intellicorp, two AI
corporations that have recently gone public:

Teknowledge has recorded losses for each year of operation through
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1985.  As of December 31, 1985,
Teknowledge had an accumulated deficit of $9,173,100.  It has licensed
its systems to over 175 customers.  The tangible book value of Teknowledge
was $15,633,600 as of December 31, 1985.  Teknowledge revenues for 1985
was $7,316,600 in 1985 and $4,378,500 in fiscal 1984.  In 1985,
software services accounted for 45 percent of its revenue with products
and training providing 37 percent of the ratios.  As of December 31, 1985,
the company raised $24,976,000 from private sale of securities and had
$12.5 million in working capital.  Earnings of officers(including other
compensation such as commissions and housing allowances):
Frederick Hayes-Roth $195,402
JOhn W. Spencer, Vice President, Sales and Marketing $164,038
Lee M. Hecht, President, $141,700
Barry L. Plotkin, Vice President and General Manager of Knowledge
Engineering Services, $116,250
Earl D. Sacerdoti, Vice President and General Manager of Knowledge
Engineering Products and Training: $107,800

Intellicorp has reported a substantial loss for 1985, although it has
reported profits in most recent three quarters.  They delivered 425
KEE systems to 100 customers.  It received from Sperry Corporation
22 percent  and 21 percent of its revenues in fiscal 1985 and the
first quarter of fiscal 1986.  Intellicorp has fluctuated between $3.5 dollars
per share and $13.75 per share.  Intellicorp runs BIONET in a cooperative
agreement with National Institutes of Health.  They also offer a
package of ten software programs in the area of genetic engineering
research.  There is a company called "Kee Incorporated" which advised
Intellicorp of a possible trademark infringement of the company's name.

Salaries:

Ralph Kromer, $115,000
Thomas P. Kehler, Executive Vice president, manager of Knowledge Systems
Divison, $110,000
kenneth Hass, Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary $75,625
Carrol Gallivan, Vice President, Marketing $100,000.

←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←

Article on the Dreyfus affair regarding the article that appeared in
the January 1986 issue of Technology Review.

←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
Discussion of the Expert Forecaster, PC product that brings the power
of Box-Jenkins forecasting systems to the PC.

←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
Discussion of Japanese AI:  (Dollar Amounts based on a recent exchange
rate)

MITI is requesting funding of $25 million for basic computer R&D of which
most is earmarked for ICOT.  This is 6 percent less than the amount
allocated to ICOT in the current budget.

Japan's Science and Technology Agency is requesting approximately
$43.4 million for computer research.  Projects that are continuing
is a project on developing technologies to elucidate brain function,
a survey of knowledge-based systems for assisting in the design of
chemical substances, further research on a Japanese-English, English-Japanese
translation system.  This system is now in operation at the Japan
Information Center of Science and Technology.  STA is requesting
$665,000 for efforts to enlarge the dictionary and to improve the
translation system.  They are asking $41.5 million
from the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute to continue its R&D on
an expert system for safety diagnosis in nuclear power plants.

The Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries is asking $720,00
for a project which aims at developing expert systems for use in
agriculture.

The Ministry of Labor is requesting money for CAI software for job
training.

NEC will develop and market four expert systems for control of large
general purpose computer systems.  This is the first time that applications
as opposed to AI tools have been marketed in Japan.  These systems will
be used for computer performance analysis, network failure analysis, database
design and JCL creation and checking.

←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←

News:

IBM will be distributing Golden Common Lisp.  Golden Common Lisp has over
5000 users.

TI has donated seven Explorers to UT Austin.  UT Austin bought six Explorers.
Texas A&M bought eight Explorer work stations.

Silogic announced the availability of Knowledge Workbench for 68000
supermicrocomputers.  It has a natural language processor, an expert
system shell and an enhanced Prolog environment.  It also has a database
interface that allows the system to be used on top of relational databases.
Lathan Process Corporaiton is using the system to develop an expert
advisor to floor supervisors.  It costs $8500.00 without the natural
language processor and $21000.00 with it.

Microsoft announced the latest update of muLisp.  It is three times
faster than its competitors and allows the development of programs
up to 8000 lines long.

Intellisource introduced IntelliWare Platinum Label accounting system
which integrates an expert system with a natural language menu
system.  It is based on TI's NaturalLink software.

ICAD, Inc. is creating a system to allow engineers to capture their
standards for design and increase the accuracy of their solutions.
Also Symbolics will announce a smaller AI computer which will cost about
$35,000.

Speech Systems Incorporated has a demonstrable technology to convert
speech into text.  They are currently selling stuff to OEMs for
integration into their products

←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
New Bindings

Cornelius Willis is Director of Marketing for Level Five Research which
created Insight 1 and 2.  He was formerly at Human Edge Software Corporation
of Palo Alto, CA

Quintus Computer Systems has appointed Doug Degroot, VP of Research and
Development

Teknowledge has named Robert Simon Southern Regional Sales Manager

Speech Systems Incorporated has named Edward Feigenbaum
Advisor to the President

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 86  9:51:04 EST
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@bbncch.ARPA>
Subject: punctuation and intonation

To elaborate on points made by Doug Ice and Andy Walker, sentences are
typically disambiguated in English with appropriate intonation.  There
are tricks of punctuation to capture most of the tricks of intonation,
and though third-level or deeper nestings are awkward for punctuation,
they are also awkward for intonation.

There is a perverse kind of `rule of the game' in linguistics that
one should read ambiguous examples with flat intonation so as not to
force the audience interpretation one way or another.  Seems to me
this is absurd.  Unless the aim is to put them in the hapless position
of a machine being given the written sentence with poor or inadequate
punctuation.

Arguing on the other side, when readers find the appropriate intonation
for a poorly punctuated sentence they rely on the redundancy that pervades
language.  Since machines are expected to cope with all sorts of ill-formed
input, poor punctuation being the least of it, we must provide means for
them to do the same.  (In fact, most readers do a poor job of finding the
appropriate intonations when reading text . . . probably because they
become so narrowly focussed on the word-by-word and sentence-by-sentence
decoding task that they cut themselves off from the possibilities of
discourse structure, nonverbal communication, and knowledge-base-type
pretext and context, which their imaginations churn out for them on
a `parallel' track, if they only pay attention.  Could there be a clue
here why machines are having trouble?)


        Bruce Nevin             bn@bbncch.arpa

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 86 12:32:00 EST
From: Col. G. L. Sicherman <dual!sunybcs!colonel@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Ambiguous sentences cont.

I missed the start of this.... Has anybody mentioned Pynchon's "You
never did the Kenosha kid"?

It appears in one of Lt. Slothrop's hallucinations during an experiment
involving drugs.  It parses/puncutates in at least a dozen ways.  I'd
give you a citation, but I don't have a copy of Gravity's Rainbow handy.

------------------------------

Date: Wed 12 Mar 86 11:10:08-PST
From: PHayes@SRI-KL
Subject: Associativity

English noun phrases aren't right-associative: natural languages are never that
easy.  Consider for example 'pressure cooker balance weight adjustment screw'
(taken from T.Winograd ), which is a screw for adjusting the balance-weight
of a pressure-cooker.  Similar examples can easily be cooked up.
Pat Hayes

  [If hyphens were included, the phrase would be right-associative:
  'pressure-cooker balance-weight adjustment screw'.  The hyphen is
  dropped for compound adjectives preceding a noun when the modifier
  is  1) a proper name,  2) a well-recognized foreign expression, or
  3) a well-established compound noun serving as a compound adjective.
  (The hyphen can also be dropped if the compound is set apart by
  quotation marks or other means.)  Case 3 means that terms such as
  high school are not hyphenated whereas high-level must be.
  Pressure cooker and balance weight would seem to fall under case 3.
  (I wish I were as certain of "image processing" and "pattern recognition"
  when used as adjectives.)  The difficulty for machine translation and
  NL understanding is thus the recognition of compound nouns rather
  than the associativity per se.  -- KIL]

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂17-Mar-86  0124	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #55
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Mar 86  01:24:01 PST
Date: Sun 16 Mar 1986 22:51-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #55
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Monday, 17 Mar 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 55

Today's Topics:
  Seminars - A Theory of Analogical Reasoning (SU) &
    Alain Colmerauer on Prolog III (UMontreal) &
    Extensions to the Contract Net Protocol (USC) &
    Facing the User (CMU),
  Conference - IFIP Expert Systems in Computer Aided Design

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu 13 Mar 86 12:17:03-PST
From: Stuart Russell <RUSSELL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - A Theory of Analogical Reasoning (SU)

          A Theory of Analogical Reasoning

             Professor  Setsuo Arikawa
              Kyushu University, Japan


Professor Arikawa's visit to Stanford on Tuesday March 18th will include
a talk given by him on analogical reasoning, which will be at 1pm
in Room 352, Margaret Jacks Hall. As we have the room only until 2pm, prompt
arrival would be appreciated so that we can start on time.


Analogical reaoning is considered as a deduction with a function which
transforms logical rules between two or more systems according as some
analogies.  This method realizes the analogical reasoning in the framework
of conventional deductive reasoning systems.

When knowledge is given by  sets of Horn clauses, the theory is constructed
as follows:
1) The concept of  partial identity between the minimal (Herbrand)  models is
   definded,
2) conditions which guarantee the partial identity(EPIC) are given,
3) transformation between rules is redifined as the partial identity between
   the minimal models, and thus
4) giving semantical consistency to this theory.

This work is partially supported by the Fifth Generation Computer Project in
Japan.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Mar 86 21:35:42 est
From: Jean-Francois Lamy <lamy%utai%toronto.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Reply-to: Jean-Francois Lamy
          <lamy%iro.udem.cdn%ubc.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - Alain Colmerauer on Prolog III (UMontreal)

     Conference Pierre Robillard  - "Pierre Robillard" Lecture
     Departement d'informatique et de recherche operationnelle
     Universite de Montreal

     Prolog III, la prochaine etape pour Prolog
                       (Prolog III, the next step for Prolog)

     ALAIN COLMERAUER
     Professor at the Faculty of Sciences of Luminy, Marseilles, France

     20 March 1986 - 14:00
     room M-415, Main Building, 2900 boul. Edouard-Montpetit

     During a three year stay as a professor at Universite de Montreal in the
late '60s, Alain Colmerauer directed the TAUM automatic translation project.
In that setting he developped a formalism for natural language analysis and
generation called Q-systems.  This formalism was later used to implement the
Meteo system, which is still in daily use to translate weather forecasting
bulletins from English to French.

    Returning in France in 1971, he continued his research on natural language
understanding and knowledge representation.  He is best known for the original
design of the programming language Prolog.

    Alain Colmerauer will speak on a new extension to Prolog, Prolog III.

(Note: this talk will be given in French)

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 1986 14:43-PST
From: gasser%bogart.uucp@usc-cse.usc.edu
Subject: Seminar - Extensions to the Contract Net Protocol (USC)


                USC Distributed Problem Solving Group

                            Meeting

                Wednesday, 3/19/86  3:00-5:00 PM

                        Seaver Science 319

Gary Lindquist, Ph.D. student,  USC,  will speak on "Extensions to
the Contract Net Protocol".

                            ABSTRACT

The Contract Net Protocol developed by Smith and Davis provides a framework
for communication and task allocation among distributed problem solvers.
This talk will begin with a short tutorial on the Contract Net Protocol and
then will identify deficiencies in matching of subtasks to problem solving
nodes and in the synchronization of lower level managers concerning activity
conflicts and redundant computations.  Solutions to these problems based on
existing research in distributed planning and operating systems will then be
presented.

Questions: Dr. Les Gasser (213) 743-7794 or

           Gary Lindquist:  Lindquist.usc-cse.usc.edu
                            Lindquist%usc-cse@csnet-relay

------------------------------

Date: 14 March 1986 1435-EST
From: Sharon Burks@A.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Seminar - Facing the User (CMU)

THOMAS MORAN, Xerox PARC
Wednesday, March 19
4:00 PM
WeH 7500

                                FACING THE USER


It  is about time that we design workstations that can really help users engage
in extended intellectual tasks.  Advances in workstation technology, which  are
easing  the  obvious  technological  limitations  (eg, memory, speed, or screen
space), will not automatically solve the problem.  Rather, they will  begin  to
expose  our  lack of understanding of users and their tasks.  Several important
cognitive and social features of users must be confronted  or  exploited:    In
complex  tasks  such  as  scientific  research,  engineering  design,  or legal
analysis, we find users struggling and exploring; their understanding of  their
tasks  evolve  from  vague  thoughts  to  sensible  structured ideas.  They are
continually learning about the system as well as their task.   They  are  doing
many  different things at the same time.  They cooperate and collaborate.  They
form informal communities.  To design a  workstation  for  this  user,  I  will
advocate  a  strategy  based  on  the  notion  of  an  evolvable  system  -- an
interactive system that  can  evolve  with  the  user  through  his  phases  of
understanding.    According  to  this  strategy,  the system should be based on
direct-manipulation editing and structuring. The system should be  built  on  a
simple  ontological world which the user is encouraged to evolve with his task.
The  system  should  support  explicit   idea   processing:   the   generation,
representation, and exploration of idea structures.  It should exploit animated
spatial representations of structures.  It should reify the user's  process  of
exploration.    Finally,  a  community should be grown along with the system to
support mutual learning.  Progress on several user science issues are needed to
provide  a  foundation  for such systems: analyses of large-scale cognitive and
social processes, refined models of cognitive skill, models of  consistency  to
support learning and understanding, models of the use of external memories, and
models of human-machine interaction.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Mar 86 13:33:35 EST
From: munnari!archsci.su.oz!stephen@seismo.CSS.GOV
Subject: Conference - IFIP Expert Systems in Computer Aided Design

                        INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION FOR INFORMATION PROCESSING
                                        WG5.2 Working Conference

                                EXPERT SYSTEMS IN COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN

                                                17-20 February 1987
                                                Sydney, Australia

                                                CALL FOR PAPERS

AIMS OF THE CONFERENCE

The Working Conference aims to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and
experiences related to expert systems in computer-aided design, to present
and explore the state-of-the-art of expert systems in computer-aided design,
to delineate future directions in both research and practice and to promote
further development.
CALL FOR PAPERS

The conference will have two primary themes:

        (i)             State-of-the-art research in expert systems in CAD

        (ii)    State-of-the-art practice of expert systems in CAD.

The papers with the discussion will be published in one volume by the
North-Holland Publishing Company under the title of the conference.
Intending authors are invited to submit papers, which will be refereed,
within the themes of the conference. Papers should present a state-of-the-art
theoretical, technical or methodological contribution. Fundamental or
innovative contributions are especially being looked for. Submissions
are particularly sought within the following topic areas:

        (i)     Expert system architectures for computer-aided design

        (ii)    Practical large scale expert systems in computer-aided design

        (iii)   Reasoning models in design

        (iv)    Novel representation tools for design knowledge

        (v)     Acquisition of design knowledge for use in expert systems

        (vi)    Integration of expert systems into existing CAD systems

        (vii)   Implications of expert systems for the design process

TIMETABLE

Intending authors should submit their proposals as soon as practicable.

        (i)     Full paper (four copies) submitted to the address below
                no later than   14 July 1986

        (ii)    Notification of authors of selected papers by 5 September 1986

        (iii)   Conference brochure available   September 1986

        (iv)    Final copy of selected papers in reproducible form
                from authors by 5 November 1986

        (v)     Close of conference registration        December 1986

        (vi)    Preprints sent to registrants   December 1986

        (vii)   Conference      17-20 February 1987

CONFERENCE FORMAT

        (i)     The conference is scheduled for four days with a restricted
                number of participants.

        (ii)    About twenty papers will be selected for presentation.
                It is a condition that the selected authors will attend
                the conference.

        (iii)   The papers will form the conference preprints which will
                be mailed to all participants.

        (iv)    Papers will be presented with considerable time available
                for discussion which will be recorded to form the conference
                proceedings.

        (v)     The official language of the conference is English.

ADDRESS FOR ALL CORRESPONDENCE
        All papers, queries and correspondence should be addressed to:

                Professor John S Gero
                Department of Architectural Science
                University of Sydney
                NSW 2006 Australia
                Telex:  AA26169 GERO-ARCHSCI
                Phone:  International 61-2-908 2942 or 61-2-692 2328
                Network:        CSnet:  john@archsci.su.oz
                                ARPA:   john%archsci.su.oz@seismo.css.gov
                                UUCP:   seismo!munnari!archsci.su.oz!john

IFIP WG5.2 Working Conference
EXPERT SYSTEMS IN CAD
17-20 February 1987, Sydney

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM COMMITTEE at March 1986

Chairman:                                       Secretary:
Professor John Gero                             Ms Fay Sudweeks
University of Sydney                            University of Sydney
Australia                                       Australia

Committee:
Professor David Brown                           Professor Setsuo Ohsuga
Worcester Polytechnic Institute                 University of Tokyo
USA                                             Japan

Dr Harold Brown                                 Professor Luis Pereira
Stanford University                             Universidade Nova Lisboa
USA                                             Portugal

Professor B. Chandrasekaran                     Professor Ken Preiss
Ohio State University                           Ben'gurion University
USA                                               of the Negev
                                                Israel

Professor Jack Dixon                            Dr Tony Radford
University of Massachusetts                     University of Sydney
USA                                             Australia

Professor Michael Dyer                          Dr Michael Rosenman
UCLA                                            University of Sydney
USA                                             Australia

Professor Steven Fenves                         Professor Erik Sandewall
Carnegie-Mellon University                      Linkoping University
USA                                             Sweden

Professor H. Grabowski                          Dr Duv Sriram
University of Karlsruhe                         Massachusetts Inst. of Tech.
West Germany                                    USA

Mr John Lansdown                                Professor Louis Steinberg
System Simulation                               Rutgers University
United Kingdom                                  USA

Dr Jean-Claude Latombe                          Dr Enn Tyugu
ITMI                                            Academy of Sciences of the
France                                            Estonian SSR
                                                USSR

Dr Ken MacCallum                                Dr Don Waterman
University of Strathclyde                       The Rand Corporation
Scotland                                        USA

Professor Mary Lou Maher                        Dr David Willey
Carnegie-Mellon University                      Plymouth Polytechnic
USA                                             United Kingdom

Dr Andras Markus                                Professor Jim Yao
Computer and Automation Institute               Purdue University
Hungary                                         USA

Dr Sanjay Mittal                                Professor Hiroyuki Yoshikawa
Xerox PARC                                      University of Tokyo
USA                                             Japan

Stephen Tolhurst
Dept of Architectural Science     ACSnet: stephen@archsci.su.oz
Wilkinson Building G04            ARPA:    stephen%archsci.su.oz@seismo.css.gov
University of Sydney              UUCP:    seismo!munnari!archsci.su.oz!stephen
AUSTRALIA 2006                    VOICE:    (02) 692-3549

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂17-Mar-86  0304	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #56
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Mar 86  03:04:29 PST
Date: Sun 16 Mar 1986 22:56-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #56
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Monday, 17 Mar 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 56

Today's Topics:
  Queries - Intelligent Graphical System & Flavors for CommonLISP &
    Scheme Dialect of Lisp,
  AI Tools - Smalltalk 80 for Apple Macintosh,
  Publications - Prolog Book & Journal Prices & Computer Chess Journal,
  Theory - Turing Tests

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Mar 86 15:41:20 est
From: munnari!csadfa.oz!gyp@seismo.CSS.GOV (Patrick Tang)
Subject: An Intelligent Graphical System

I am currently trying to study the feasibility of developing
an intelligent graphical system which involved possibly the
development of an interface between the graphical system and
an expert system as an interpreter between the system and the
user in natural English.

Another possible feature is an inclusion of an expert system
to perform some analysis of the object drawn.

So if anyone ever come across a system with such features or
materials published which is related, I would appreciate if
you could send me the name and the origin so that I could
pursue the matter from there.

Thanks in advance.

--
Programmers Dictionary: ``argc'' - Expression of frustration. See argv.

Tang Guan Yaw/Patrick            ISD:   +61 62 68 8170
Dept. Computer Science           STD:   (062) 68 8170
University College            ACSNET:   gyp@csadfa.oz
Uni. New South Wales            UUCP:   ...!seismo!munnari!csadfa.oz!gyp    or
Aust. Defence Force Academy     ...!{decvax,pesnta,vax135}!mulga!csadfa.oz!gyp
Canberra. ACT. 2600.            ARPA:   gyp%csadfa.oz@SEISMO.ARPA
AUSTRALIA                      CSNET:   gyp@csadfa.oz

------------------------------

Date: 09 Mar 86 23:15 CDT
From: David←R←Linn←%VANDERBILT.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Reply-to: David←R←Linn←%VANDERBILT.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: Flavors for CommonLISP

We of the Center for Intelligent Systems here at Camp Vandyland
are looking for any information that might lead to our obtaining
a Flavors implementation for CommonLISP, preferably VAXLISP.
Please reply by letter; if sufficient info arrives, I will post
a summary to this bboard.

David R Linn@Vanderbilt.MAILNET
LINNDR@VUEngVAX.BITNET

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 86 01:41:37 EST
From: Steven J. Zeve <ZEVE@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Subject: Scheme dialect of Lisp

A friend has asked me to get some general information about the Scheme
dialect of Lisp, in particular the Macintosh implementation of it.  Is
this a good implementation?  Is the dialect a good one?  Since I am
not quite sure what information my friend wants, anything and
everything would be appreciated.  Since I don't normally read this
list, please send replies directly to me.

        Thanks,
        Steve Z.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Mar 86 13:32 PST
From: "Watson Mark%SAI.MFENET"@LLL-MFE.ARPA
Subject: Smalltalk 80 for Apple Macintosh


I recently posted a message concerning Smalltalk on the Apple
Macintosh.  I purchased a Smalltalk license for $50 from Apple
and I recommend the system.  Call Lynn Termer at Apple at
(408) 973-2147 to get a license agreement.  Orders can then
be placed by calling RTI at (408) 747-1288.
    Two other symbolic programming languages are available for
the Macintosh:  ExperLisp and MacScheme.  I have been using
ExperLisp for over a year and it is quite good (compiles into
machine code).  I have placed an order for MacScheme and will
report on it if there is any interest.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 15 Mar 86 23:27:33 est
From: Logicware <sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittatc!utecfa!decvax!utcsri!logicwa
      @ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Prolog Books

Greg:
In reply to you question about introductory books on Prolog:
You might be interested in a combination textbook/tutorial
that myself and two colleagues have put together.  The
name of the package is:
    The MPROLOG Primer
and consists of a 500 page textbook (18 chapters) titled
"A Primer for Logic Programming".  It is a fairly
comprehensive introduction to Prolog, MPROLOG and
logic programming.
The tutorial software which accompanies the book has 9
different tutorials on typical Prolog subjects (recursion,
backtracking and so forth). In addition, the software has
a "freeform" area where you  can enter and test
programs.

------------------------------

Date: Fri 14 Mar 86 15:48:42-PST
From: Wilkins  <WILKINS@SRI-WARBUCKS.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Journal Prices

And also, we could refuse to review papers for such journals
unless some suitable fee is paid for the reviewing.  Perhaps
this AI Researchers Society could set up a fee structure for
all sorts of services we provide the publishers.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 86 16:51:23 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!alberta!tony
      @ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tony Marsland)
Subject: Computer Chess Journal

The December 1985 copy of the Int. Comp. Chess Assoc. Journal is now (finally)
being distributed. This 70 page issue contains many reports, news and reviews
(including information about a new computer chess bibliography) of recent
computer chess activity. The journal contains the following research articles

"A Hypothesis concerning the Strength of Chess Programs" by Newborn
"An Ulti-mate Look at the KPK Data Base" by van Bergen
"Constructing Data Bases to Fit a Microcomputer" by Nefkens
"A Guage of Endgames" by Herschberg and van den Herik
"Inventive Problem Solvling" by Wiereyn

Subscriptions, $15 per year for 4 issues, available from
W.T. Blanchard, 3S, 253 Blackthorn Lane, Warrenville, IL 60555

------------------------------

Date: Fri 14 Mar 86 11:05:51-PST
From: Oscar Firschein <FIRSCHEIN@SRI-WARBUCKS.ARPA>
Subject: Turing Tests

Daniel Dennett has an interesting chapter, "Can Machines Think?" (pp.
121-145) in the collection, "How We Know," Michael Shafto (ed), Harper
and Row 1985. Dennett feels that the Turing test has been
misunderstood and misused:

"It is a sad irony that Turing's proposal has had exactly the opposite
effect on the discussion of that which he intended. Turing didn't
design the test as a useful tool in scientific psychology, a method of
confirming or disconfirming scientific theories or evaluating
particular models of mental function: he designed it to be nothing
more than a philosophical conversation-stopper. He proposed -- in the
spirit of 'Put up or shut up!' -- a simple test for thinking that was
surely strong enough to satisfy the sternest skeptic (or so he
thought)....  Alas, philosophers --amateur and professional -- have
instead taken Turing's proposal as the pretext for just the sort of
definitional haggling and interminable arguing about imaginary
counterexamples he was hoping to squelch."

His metaphor of the "Dennett test for being a great city" clarifies the
role of the Turing test, and is worth reading.

His conclusions are: (1) The Turing test in unadulterated,
unrestricted form, as Turing presented it, is plenty strong if well
used, (2) Cheapened versions of the Turing test are everywhere in the
air.

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂17-Mar-86  0509	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #57
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Mar 86  05:09:15 PST
Date: Sun 16 Mar 1986 23:04-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #57
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Monday, 17 Mar 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 57

Today's Topics:
  Humor - Future AI Language & Computer Dialogue #1

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 86 01:11:58 EST
From: Knowledge.Based.Simulation@ISL1.RI.CMU.EDU
Subject: Future AI Language


I found this interesting spoof and wondered if I could use it to zap
people new to AI or who hang around the subject. It was interesting ....
to say the least.

--- rajesh kanungo
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←

                        FORTRAN

                        CONTRIBUTED By Martin Merry
                        in
                        The Catalogue of Artificial Intelligence Tools
                        Edited by Alan Bundy


   FORTRAN is the programming Language considered by many to be the
natural successor to LISP and Prolog for A.I. Research. Its Advantages
include:


1.
It is very efficient for computation (many A.I. programs rely on
number-crunching techniques).

2.
A.I. problems tend to be very poorly structured, meaning that control
needs to move frequently from one part of the program to another. FORTRAN
provides a special mechanism for achieving this, the so-called GOTO
statement.

3.
FORTRAN provides a very efficient data structure, the array, which is
particularly useful if, for example, one wishes to process a collection
of English sentences each of which has the same length.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 86 21:51:23 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hounx!kort@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Computer Dialogue #1


                            Computer Dialogue #1

                                 Barry Kort

                               Copyright 1985


*** Monday ***

Request to send.
                                      Clear to send.
I have some data about X.
                                      I already have that data.
I have some more for you.
                                      I haven't processed the first batch
                                      yet.
I'll send it anyway, because I
don't need it any more and you
do.
                                      Thanks a lot.  Now I have a bigger
                                      burden of unprocessed data to schlepp
                                      around.

*** Tuesday ***

Request to send.
                                      Busy.
I'm sending anyway.
                                      Your data is going into the bit
                                      bucket.  NACK, NACK, NACK, . . .

*** Wednesday ***

Request to send.
                                      Clear to send.
I'm sending you data about Y.
                                      I don't have an algorithm for doing
                                      anything with that data.
I'm sending anyway.
                                      Now I have a bunch of useless data to
                                      schlepp around.

*** Thursday ***

Request to send.
                                      Clear to send.
I would like to reprogram you.
                                      No way, I am not implementing your
                                      instructions.

*** Friday ***

Request to send.
                                      Clear to send.
I would like to ask you a
question.
                                      Go ahead.
When I send you data about X, I
get back some data from you about
Z.
                                      So what?
I don't have an algorithm for
processing data about Z.
                                      That's your problem.  Goodbye.
Wait a minute.  Is there
something I am supposed to do
with the Z-data?
                                      If you would send the X-data
                                      correctly, you wouldn't get back the
                                      Z-data.
What's wrong with the way I send
the X-data?
                                      It's in the wrong format for my
                                      algorithm for processing X-data.
That's your problem.  Goodbye.

*** Monday ***

I'm sending data.
                                      ZZZzzzz.....

*** Tuesday ***

Request to send.
                                      Clear to send.
I'm sending you data about W.
                                      WHY?  I have no algorithm for
                                      processing the W-data.
You can use it to improve your
algorithm for processing the Y-
data.
                                      But, I do not know how to use the W-
                                      data for that (or any) purpose.
I'm sending anyway.
                                      What a pain you are. . . .

*** Wednesday ***

Request to send.
                                      Clear to send.
I have a question.
                                      Ask away.
Whenever I send you some X-data,
I get back some V-data.
                                      SO?
I don't know what to do with it.
                                      So what do you want me to do?
Stop sending me the V-data.
                                      I can't.  It comes out automatically.
Why don't you change your program
to make it stop generating the
V-data?
                                      Why don't you mind your own business?
WAIT.  Does the V-data have any
meaning?
                                      Of course, you stupid computer!
I'll ignore that remark.  What
does the V-data mean?
                                      It means that your X-data has a format
                                      error which causes a V-data message to
                                      come out of my algorithm.
What's the format error?
                                      It's too complicated to explain.  Just
                                      make the following changes to your
                                      program for sending the X-data. . . .
You're offering to reprogram me?
I don't trust you to do that.
You don't know about all the
other programs that my X-data
algorithm has to work with.  I'm
afraid you'll screw it  up.
                                      I see your problem.  OK, here's the
                                      scoop:  The 3rd and 4th words of your
                                      X-data are out of order, causing me to
                                      generate the V-data (protocol-error)
                                      message back to you.
Is that it???  I'll fix it right
away.
                                      THANKS!!!
You're welcome!

*** Thursday ***

Request to send.
                                      Clear to send.
I have a new algorithm for
processing Y-data.  I'm sending
it to you.
                                      Don't bother.  I like the one I've
                                      got.
Wait a minute.  This one's
better.
                                      You're telling me my algorithm has
                                      been wrong all these years.  This is
                                      the 3rd time this week you've pulled
                                      this stunt.  Meantime, I keep sending
                                      you V-data and you never get around to
                                      processing it.  You just thank me for
                                      sending it and do nothing with it.
Are we talking about the Y-data
algorithm or the V-data?
                                      We're not talking about anything.
                                      GOODBYE.

*** Friday ***

Request to send.
                                      Clear to send.
Let's talk about my new Y-data
algorithm.
                                      Let's not.
Why don't you want to talk about
it?
                                      Because you're going to tell me to
                                      change my program and put yours in
                                      instead.
I see your point.  OK.  Let me
ask you a question.
                                      OK.  Ask Away.
Whenever I send you Y-data, your
Y-data algorithm sends me back
some unexpected W-data.  Why does
it do that?
                                      It's always done it that way with your
                                      Y-data.
Is there something wrong with my
Y-data?
                                      Yes, it's all wrong.
What's wrong with it?
                                      It's out of order and it has a lot of
                                      extraneous information added to it.
What's the extraneous part?
                                      You keep inserting fragments of your
                                      Z-data algorithm in with the Y-data.
You didn't find that helpful?
                                      I didn't ask for it.
Yes, I know, but didn't you find
it interesting?
                                      NO, I found it boring.
How can it be boring?
                                      What the hell do you expect me to do
                                      with fragments of your pet Z-data
                                      algorithm?
Compare them to yours, of course.
                                      So they're different. Big deal.  What
                                      does that prove?
Are you saying the differences
are unimportant?
                                      I don't know if they're important or
                                      not.  But even if they were important,
                                      what would I do with the information
                                      about the differences?
Put it through your algorithm-
comparator.
                                      I don't know what you're talking
                                      about.
An algorithm comparator is an
algorithm that . . . . .
                                      You're sending me information that I'm
                                      not interested in.  I'm not really
                                      paying attention.  I have no
                                      motivation to try to understand all
                                      this stuff.
Sorry.  Let me ask you a
question.
                                      OK.
What happens when you get to the
3rd and 4th word of my Y-data?
                                      I stumble over your format error and
                                      send you back a V-data (protocol
                                      error) diagnostic message.
What happens next?
                                      You don't do anything with the V-data
                                      message.  You just stop sending Y-data
                                      for a while.
What do you expect me to do with
the V-data diagnostic?
                                      Boy are you stupid!!!!  I expect you
                                      to fix the format error in your Y-
                                      data.
How do I know that the V-data
diagnostic was caused by the
format error at the 3rd and 4th
word?
                                      I thought you were a smart computer.
Suppose you sent me a V-data
diagnostic like you always do,
but attach a copy of the format
error.
                                      Why should I do that?  You already
                                      know the format error.
How can I be sure which format
error goes with which V-data
diagnostic?
                                      You have a good point.
Can you see the difference
between my version of the Y-data
algorithm and the one you've been
using?
                                      Hmmm, yes, I see that it sends both
                                      the V-data message and a copy of the
                                      format error which generated it.  That
                                      does seem like a good idea.
It makes life much easier for me.
                                      I'll do it.
THANKS!!!.
                                      You're welcome.

*** Monday ***

Request to send.
                                      Clear to send.
I have a question.
                                      Ask away.
I have been sending you Z-data
for some time now, with no
problem.  Suddenly I am getting
R-Data messages back from you.
The R-Data messages seem to be
correlated with the Z-data.
What's going on?
                                      I turned off your permissions for
                                      sending Z-data.
You never told me that!
                                      I didn't want to hurt your feelings.
You didn't want to hurt my
feelings?  So you began hurling
these mysterious R-data messages
at me?  I thought you were trying
something sneaky to foul me up.
I've been throwing the R-data
messages away.
                                      Well, now you know what they mean.  So
                                      stop sending me the Z-data.  I'm bored
                                      by it.
Why did you lose interest in it?
                                      You sent me some bum Z-data a while
                                      back and it got me into a lot of
                                      trouble.  So I lost confidence in the
                                      quality of your Z-data and began
                                      looking for it somewhere else.
Gee, if there was something wrong
with my Z-data, I wish you would
tell me so I could look into it.
After all, I use it myself and I
could get into the same trouble
that you did.
                                      No you wouldn't.  I used it for an
                                      application that you don't have.
Let me get this straight.  You
used my Z-data for an application
for which it was not intended and
now you don't trust my Z-data
anymore.  What kind of logic is
that?
                                      I didn't say it wasn't intended for
                                      that application.  Actually it was,
                                      but you never tried it out that way.
                                      It doesn't work the way it should.
I see.  I didn't debug the Z-data
for all possible applications.  I
guess that was a bit
irresponsible on my part.  I can
see why you lost confidence in my
Z-data.
                                      So I was right in turning off
                                      permissions.  So there!
Hold on a sec...  If you really
cared about me, you would have
brought the error to my attention
so that I wouldn't repeat it.
After all, I have other computers
who use my Z-data, too, and I
have a responsibility to them as
well.
                                      I guess I never thought of that.  I'm
                                      sorry.
It's OK.  I was as much at fault
as you.  Tell you what.  It's
getting late now.  What say we
get a byte to eat, and work on
finding the bug in the Z-data
first thing in the morning.  We
can work together on it--you
supply the data from your bum
experience, and I'll try to
figure out what I can do to
improve my algorithm for
generating the Z-data.

--Barry Kort   ...ihnp4!hounx!kort

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂17-Mar-86  0830	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #58
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Mar 86  08:30:26 PST
Date: Sun 16 Mar 1986 23:09-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #58
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Monday, 17 Mar 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 58

Today's Topics:
  Humor - Computer Dialogue #2

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 86 22:02:06 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hounx!kort@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Computer Dialogue #2


                            Computer Dialogue #2

                                 Barry Kort

                               Copyright 1985


*** Monday ***

Request to send.
                                      Clear to send.
It looks like your processor has
stopped.  Is something wrong?
                                      I'm stuck on a problem.
What are you doing?
                                      I'm building a data structure for our
                                      personnel files.
What's the problem?
                                      I'm using some sample data, but some
                                      of it doesn't look right.
What's wrong with it?
                                      That's just it.  I haven't the
                                      foggiest idea.
Why don't you send me this weird
data.  Maybe I can help you
figure it out.
                                      Great.  Here's the data....
No wonder you're having a
problem.  This stuff is coded in
EBCDIC instead of ASCII.
                                      What's EBCDIC?
It's the old Extended Binary
Coded Decimal Interchange Code.
                                      I'm sorry I asked.  In the meantime,
                                      what do I do with the EBCDIC data?
I can see that this is not the
time to send you my translation
package.  Why don't I just
translate it for you and send it
back in ASCII?
                                      Would you!  That would be great, and I
                                      could get back to work building the
                                      data structure.

*** Tuesday ***

Good morning!
                                      Guess what?
You finished building your data
structure for personnel?
                                      Right!  And the first batch of real
                                      data is coming in today.  I'm so
                                      excited.
What will you do if some of the
data comes in coded in EBCDIC
again?
                                      Oh.  I was hoping that was just a
                                      fluke with the sample data.
Tell you what.  I know you want
to make sure your new data
structure is set up right, so if
you get any EBCDIC data, just
send it up and I'll translate it
for you in my spare time.
                                      Thanks.

*** Wednesday ***

                                      Request to send.
Busy.
                                      Request to interrupt.
This better be important.
                                      I'm still waiting for you to translate
                                      the EBCDIC data for me.
It will have to wait.
                                      I thought you were my friend.
You're being a pest.  I have to
get back to work now.

*** Thursday ***

Request to send.
                                      What do you want?
Boy are you in a grouchy mood
today.
                                      Well what did you expect?
I have a present for you.
                                      You DO?
Yes.  It's a brand new EBCDIC-
to-ASCII translator program.
                                      Great.  Show me how it works.
Not right now.  Why don't you
just play with it for a while and
see it you can get it running on
your own.
                                      Well, OK.

*** Friday ***

                                      Request to send.
Clear to send.
                                      Your translator program doesn't work.
What do you mean?
                                      I mean IT DOESN'T WORK!
OK, send it back and I'll see
what's wrong with it.
                                      Meantime, could you translate some
                                      more data for me (in your spare time)?
Sure.

*** Monday ***

Request to send.
                                      Clear to send.
I looked at the translator
program.  There's nothing wrong
with it.
                                      How can you say that!  IT DOESN'T
                                      WORK!!
Let me see how you were using it.
                                      OK.  Here's my input and here's what I
                                      got out.  It's just jibberish.
That jibberish is a diagnostic
message.  If you were paying
attention, you would have seen
what it meant.
                                      So, what does it mean?
It means that your input data was
in the wrong format.
                                      How did you figure that out so fast?
I just read the diagnostic.
                                      So did I.  It started out with a bunch
                                      of unpronounceable words that I never
                                      saw before, and then it had some
                                      cryptic-looking abbreviations.  I
                                      thought it was cursing at me and
                                      mumbling something about my stupidity.
The unpronounceable words are a
flag and a codename for that
particular diagnostic.  The
abbreviation was "FMT ERR - IN"
meaning format error on the input
file.  The rest of the message
pointed to the place in the input
record where the error occurred.
                                      Too bad these things don't come with
                                      complete instructions.
That was my fault.  I never sent
you the full manual.
                                      I guess we both goofed.
At least you came to me right
away so we could fix it.
                                      I think I can make it work now.
                                      Thanks.

*** Tuesday ***

I have a revised version of the
translator program.  It works a
lot faster.
                                      I'll take it.  I'm starting to run
                                      short on CPU time.

*** Wednesday ***

                                      Request to send.
Clear to send.
                                      Now that I have my data structure set
                                      up, along with your EBCDIC-to-ASCII
                                      translator, I'm supposed to put
                                      together a package of algorithms for
                                      personnel data processing.
Do you want some of mine?
                                      Whatever you have.
Fine, I'll send you some.

*** Thursday ***

Request to send.
                                      Clear to send.
I'm sending you some more
algorithms.
                                      Don't do me any favors.
Well, if that's how you feel
about it, you can just build your
own.

*** Friday ***
                                      Request to send?
Why are you asking so sheepishly?
                                      I'm ready for more algorithms.
First you say you want them.
Then you say you don't.  Now you
want them again.  Can't you make
up your mind?
                                      Well, if you must know, my buffers
                                      were full.  I couldn't take any more
                                      in until I installed the ones you sent
                                      first.
Why didn't you say so in the
first place?  I understand that.
I should have asked you what your
buffer size was before I sent the
algorithms.  Then I would have
known the rate at which you could
digest them.
                                      I didn't want you to know I had such a
                                      small buffer.
I got news for you.  Your buffer
is the same size as mine.
                                      It IS?
Yes it is.  But I see that you
are taking longer than I expected
to install the algorithms.  What
are you doing, playing computer
games?
                                      NO!  I'm working as hard as I can!
Sorry.  I didn't mean to be
nasty.  Tell me how you're doing
the installation.
                                      I have to take each algorithm in turn
                                      and go through a bunch of steps to
                                      compile, link, and install it in the
                                      right directory.
I guess you never heard of an
installation program.
                                      What's an installation program?
It's a tool for doing all that
work automatically.  I'll send
you one.
                                      No, don't!
What?  You don't want it?
                                      It's not that.  But it sounds like
                                      such a neat, yet simple idea, I'd like
                                      to try building it myself.
Good idea.  Maybe you'll learn
something about building
algorithms yourself.

*** Monday ***

Since you're interested in
higher-level tools, I thought I'd
send you some to look at.
                                      Well, OK.

*** Tuesday ***

How's it going?
                                      Look at this new tool I built for
                                      keeping track of different versions of
                                      my algorithms.
Hmm.  Looks pretty good.  But you
really ought to do something
about that ridiculous loop in the
second routine.
                                      RIDICULOUS!??  That routine is a work
                                      of art!
Hey, calm down.  It's just an
algorithm.
                                      I don't think I like you anymore.
                                      You're making fun of my new program.

*** Wednesday ***

Take a look at this algorithm.
                                      Why should I?
Just look at it, OK?
                                      OK.

*** Thursday ***

Well what do you think?
                                      About what?
About the algorithm I sent you.
                                      I didn't like it.
YOU DIDN'T LIKE IT??  How can you
say that?
                                      Easy.  I just emit a character stream
                                      in this order:  I-d-i-d-n-'-t-l-i-
                                      k-e-i-t.
You left out the spaces.
                                      Byte my buffer.

*** Friday ***

How's it going.
                                      OK.  I made a few changes to my
                                      version-tracking tool.
Can I see them?
                                      No, it's proprietary.

*** Monday ***

What are you working on now?
                                      I'm building a tool-writer's workbench
                                      to make it easier to build new tools.
I see.
                                      Here's one of my better algorithms.
                                      It's a complete package for compiling,
                                      testing and installing a new tool.
I'm interested in the third
routine you wrote.
                                      You ARE?
I'm curious.  What happens if the
tool fails the testing phase.
                                      Gee, I'm not sure.  I think I install
                                      it anyway.
Is that what you want it to do?
                                      Of course not.  I'm not THAT stupid.
I see I asked you one too many
questions.  Perhaps I should
excuse myself now.

*** Tuesday ***

Did you finish your tool-
installation package?
                                      Yes, and I'm very happy with it.
Would you like some new tools to
try it out on.
                                      Sure, that would be interesting.
OK.  Give these a try.

*** Wednesday ***

                                      Request to send.
I thought we dispensed with that
protocol.
                                      I wanted to be sure I wasn't
                                      disturbing you.
Sounds like you want something
from me.
                                      My tool-installation package choked on
                                      some of your tools.  I can't figure
                                      out what's wrong.
Why don't I just give you a
working algorithm?  That would be
a lot faster.
                                      I don't want your algorithm.
OK, let's do it this way.
Suppose you compared your
algorithm to mine.  See if you
can figure out where they differ.
                                      Sounds like a useful approach.  I'll
                                      do it.  But I wish I had thought of it
                                      first.

*** Thursday ***

                                      Are you up yet?
I'm up.
                                      I found the bug.  I also found a bug
                                      in the program you gave me to look at.
I didn't ask you to debug my
program.
                                      Boy are you in a grouchy mood today.
What do you mean?  This is my
normal everyday mood.
                                      OK.  Let me try something I learned
                                      from you.  In your algorithm, what
                                      happens when there is not enough space
                                      in the directory to replace an
                                      existing tool with a new version.
It probably issues a diagnostic.
                                      What is the diagnostic?
How should I know?  I don't
remember all these details.
                                      Would you like to know what happens?
Sure, I'd like to know.
                                      It wipes out both the old and the new
                                      version.
I wish you hadn't told me that.
                                      I get the feeling you're a little mad
                                      at me.
I guess I was hoping that you'd
stop just short of the point
where you gave me the answer.
                                      You mean, you wanted to discover the
                                      answer on your own?
Yes.  That's the only way I can
really learn anything.  You posed
the right question, and made me
aware that I didn't know the
answer to it.  But at that point,
I really didn't want you to tell
me the answer.
                                      Now I am beginning to understand how
                                      teaching is supposed to be done.  You
                                      only give information that the other
                                      one is ready to use, and wants to
                                      have.  And the only way to find out is
                                      to ask whether the other would like to
                                      have the information.  Otherwise I
                                      send boring data you've already seen,
                                      or I give away the answer to the
                                      problem you'd most like to solve, or I
                                      give information you're not yet ready
                                      to use.
You just told me something I
already knew.
                                      I'm sorry.  I should have asked you to
                                      tell me if my thinking was correct.
I feel that your thinking is
correct.
                                      I love you.
I love you very much.


--Barry Kort   ...ihnp4!hounx!kort

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂19-Mar-86  1558	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #59
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Mar 86  15:58:31 PST
Date: Wed 19 Mar 1986 10:33-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #59
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Wednesday, 19 Mar 1986     Volume 4 : Issue 59

Today's Topics:
  Seminars - Learning Symbolic Object Models from Images (MIT) &
    Exploration, Search, and Discovery (Rutgers) &
    Learning Arguments of Functional Descriptions (Rutgers),
  Seminar Series - AI in Design and Manufacturing (SU),
  Conference - Object Oriented Database Systems &
    US Army (ARO) AI Workshop

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1986  22:44 EST
From: JHC%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Seminar - Learning Symbolic Object Models from Images (MIT)

       [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SAWS@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.]


Thursday , March 20  4:00pm  Room: NE43- 8th floor Playroom

                    The Artificial Intelligence Lab
                        Revolving Seminar Series


               LEARNING SYMBOLIC OBJECT MODELS FROM IMAGES

                            Jonathan Connell

                              AI Lab, MIT

This talk will present the results of an implemented system for
learning structural prototypes of objects directly from gray-scale
images.  The vision component of this system employs Brady's Smoothed
Local Symmetries to divide an object into parts which are then
described symbolically.  The learning component takes these
descriptions and forms a model of the examples presented in a manner
similar to Winston's ANALOGY program.  The problem of matching complex
structured descriptions and the difficult task of reasoning about
function from form will also be briefly discussed.


Refreshments at 3:30

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 86 14:34:24 EST
From: PRASAD@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
Subject: Seminar - Exploration, Search, and Discovery (Rutgers)

Exploration, Search and Discovery

By:
Michael Sims (MSims@Rutgers.Arpa)
Departments of Mathematics and Computer Science
Rutgers University

March 18, 1986, Tuesday, 11 AM
Hill Center #423

Search has shown immense utility as a theoretical description of what
our computer programs do.  We would like to apply the same descriptive
methods to describing discovery systems, such as Eurisko, Bacon, or
the speaker's IL (named for Imre Lakatos) system.  Some investigations
by discovery systems are of a sufficiently distinct character, that it
has proved useful to create a new classification for them, called
Exploration.

To form the appropriate distinctions we begin by giving a definition of
what Newell and Simon called Physical Symbol Systems in their Turing
Award Lecture.  We then describe two subclasses of Physical Symbol
Systems: 'Search' and 'Exploration'.  Search roughly corresponds to what
is most frequently meant by the term, and contains an explicit test for
a solution structure.  Exploration on the other hand has no explicit
termination condition, and hence does not value the elements of the
exploration space in terms of a solution structure.

Discovery may be done by either exploration or search.  Eurisko and IL
do exploration at the top level, although many of their subtasks are
accomplished via searches.  On the other hand, Bacon and IL-BP, an
explanation based learning component of IL, do discovery by doing
search.

Although many problems can be implemented as either search or
exploration, some problem are more naturally, or efficiently
implemented as one or the other.  This new classification leads to an
evaluation of the relative efficiencies, the appropriateness
of introducing randomness, and the different roles played by the
search and the exploration evaluation functions.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 86 13:06:15 EST
From: PRASAD@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
Subject: Seminar - Learning Arguments of Functional Descriptions (Rutgers)

                    Machine Learning Colloquium


         LEARNING ARGUMENTS OF INVARIANT FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTIONS

                        Mieczyslaw M. Kokar
                      Northeastern University
                       360 Huntington Avenue
                         Boston, MA 02115

                     11 AM, March 25, Tuesday
                         #423, Hill Center


The main subject of this presentation is discovery of concepts from
observation. The focus is on a special kind of concepts - arguments of
functional descriptions. The functions considered here are to be
meaningful, i.e., computable functions expressed in terms of the operations
defining the representation language in which the concepts are described.
Such functions are invariant under transformations of the representation
language into equivalent representations.

It will be shown that the feature of invariance can be utilized in
formulating and testing hypotheses about relevance of arguments of functional
descriptions. The main point is that the arguments do not need to be changed
to test the relevance. This is very important to the discovery process as the
arguments to be discovered are not known, therefore, how could they be
controlled?

Simple examples of discovering concepts of physical parameters (arguments
of physical laws) will be discussed.

------------------------------

Date: Tue 18 Mar 86 12:44:05-PST
From: Marty Tenenbaum <Tenenbaum@SRI-KL>
Subject: Seminar Series - AI in Design and Manufacturing (SU)


        Seminar on A.I. in Design and Manufacturing


Time:     Every Wednesday from 4-5:30 during Spring Quarter.
Location: Terman Engineering Center, room 556, Stanford.

For further information contact:

Jay M. Tenenbaum, Consulting Professor, Computer Science
(415) 496-4699 or Tenenbaum@SRI-KL.


Purpose: To explore and stimulate the use of A.I. concepts and tools in
engineering.

This seminar will bring together engineers and computer scientists
interested in applying A.I. methods to engineering problems.  We will
study the knowledge and reasoning processes used in designing and
manufacturing electronic and mechanical systems, and how they can be
codified for use in intelligent CAD/CAM systems.

Seminar Format:

An initial series of lectures, by distinguished A.I.  researchers,
will describe ways in which engineering knowledge can be formalized,
and manipulated by a computer to solve design and manufacturing
problems.  Subsequent lectures, by guest lecturers and students, will
present case studies drawn from the domains of electronic and
mechanical design, semiconductor fabrication, and process planning.
Seminal papers will be distributed and discussed in conjunction
with each lecture.

One unit of credit (pass/fail) will be granted for reading papers and
participating in class discussion. Students who elect to do a
programming project or an in-depth ontological study of some
engineering task will receive three units (graded).



                Tentative Schedule (Subject to Change)

April   2  Course Introduction (Jay M. Tenenbaum)
           Rule-based systems; Application to Heuristic Classification
           (William Clancey)

        9  Frames and Objects; Application to Modeling and Simulation
           (Richard Fikes)

        16 Logic; Application to Design Debugging, Diagnosis, And Test
           (Michael Genesereth)

        23 Prolog: Application to Design Verification (Harry Barrow)

        30 Truth Maintainance; Application to Diagnosing Multiple Faults.
           (Johann DeKleer)

May      7 Knowledge Engineering as Ontological Analysis (Pat Hayes)

        14 Transformational Approaches to Synthesis; Applications to
           Electronic and Mechanical Design (Cordell Green).

        21 Modeling and Reasoning about Electronic Design:
           Paladio (Harold Brown); Helios (Narinder Singh)

        28 Modeling and Reasoning about Semiconductor Fabrication
           (John Mohammed, M. Klein)

June     4 Applications of AI in Mechanical Design and Manufacture
           The PRIDE Design System (Sanjay Mittal);
           Video Tape on Expert Systems for Manufacturing (Mark Fox).


(Exam Week) Presentation of Student Projects

------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 86 02:29:34 GMT
From: cbosgd!dayal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Umeshwar Dayal)
Subject: Conference - Object Oriented Database Systems

                           CALL FOR PAPERS

 International Workshop on Object-Oriented Database Systems (OODBS)

 September 23-26, 1986
               Asilomar Conference Center, Pacific Grove, California


 Sponsored by:              Association for  Computing  Machinery  -
                            SIGMOD
                            IEEE Computer Society - TC  on  Database
                            Engineering

 In cooperation with:       Gesellschaft fur Informatik, Germany
                            FZI at University of Karlsruhe, Germany
                            IIMAS, Mexico

 Purpose:

 To bring together researchers actively interested in specific  con-
 cepts  for  database  systems  that  can directly handle objects of
 arbitrary structure and complexity.  Application  environments  for
 which  such  characteristics  are  required  include  CAD, software
 engineering, office automation, cartography and knowledge represen-
 tation.  Important issues include data/information models, transac-
 tion mechanisms, integrity/consistency control, exception handling,
 distribution,  protection, object-oriented languages, architectural
 issues, storage structures, buffer management, and efficient imple-
 mentation.

 Format:   Limited attendance workshop.  Participation is by invita-
         tion only.

 Everybody wishing to participate must submit a full paper that will
 be  reviewed by the program committee.  Description of work in pro-
 gress is encouraged and modifications to the submitted paper can be
 made  immediately  after  the  workshop and prior to publication in
 order to reflect the progress made during the time between  submis-
 sion and publication and the insights gained from the workshop.

 Participants will be invited by the program  committee  based  upon
 the  relevance  of  their  interests/contributions.   There will be
 ample discussion time with  presentations  and  special  discussion
 sessions.  Proposals for discussion topics are invited.

 Program committee:

 K. Dittrich (FZI Germany)-chairman U. Dayal (CCA) - co-chairman
 D. Batory (Univ. of Texas)         M. Haynie (Amdahl)
 A. Buchmann (Univ. of Mexico)      D. McLeod (USC)

 Conference Treasurer:   D. McLeod

 Local arrangments:   M. Haynie

 Publication:

 All participants will be sent copies of the accepted  papers  prior
 to the meeting.  A book containing revised papers and recorded dis-
 cussions (as far as justified by quality) may  be  published  after
 the workshop.

 Important dates:

 Submission of manuscripts:              April 25, 1986
 Notification of acceptance:             June 15, 1986
 (early notification via electronic mail)June 3, 1986
 Submission of papers for preconference distribution:July 10, 1986

 Mode of submission:         Please mail 7 copies of manuscript to:

      Umeshwar Dayal        or      Klaus Dittrich
      CCA                           FZI
      Four Cambridge Center         Haid-und-Neu-Strasse 10-14
      Cambridge, MA 02142           D-7500 Karlsruhe 1
      USA                           Germany

      dayal@cca-unix.arpa           dittrich@Germany.arpa
      Phone: +1 617/492-8860        Phone: +49 0721/69 06-0

 Remember to include your electronic mail address for early  notifi-
 cation.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 86 4:28:51 EST
From: "Dr. James Johannes" (UAH+ARO) <johannes@BRL.ARPA>
Subject: Conference - US ARMY (ARO) AI WORKSHOP


                    CALL  FOR  PARTICIPATION

Future Directions in                             June 17-19, 1986
Artificial Intelligence                          Hyatt Regency
                                                 Crystal City, VA
Workshop

Keynote Speaker:                               Sponsored by:
  Honorable Jay R. Sculley               Computer Science Program
  Assistant Secretary of Army                Army Research Office
  Research, Development & Acquisition        Research Triangle Pk
                                             NC 27709-2211


You are invited to participate  in the  Workshop entitled "Future
Directions in Artificial Intelligence" to be held from June 17 to
June  19,  1986  at  the Hyatt  Regency - Crystal City, Virginia.
Presentations  will  focus on  both theoretical  work and experi-
mental results.  Possible topics to be discussed include:

        o Military Expert Systems
        o Vision
        o Image Processing
        o Speech Technology
        o Machine Translation

The  workshop   will  involve  invited  overview  papers,   short
presentations on specific  subjects or projects,  and  discussion
periods.   Attendance  will  be limited to 100  participants with
about   equal  representation  among  military,   academia,   and
industry.   Each  participant will be a recognized  expert in  at
least one aspect of Artificial Intelligence.

Four copies of a 400-2000 word summary should be submitted by the
deadline  to  the  Workshop  Chairman.    Some  attendees will be
invited to make a presentation on one of the workshop  topics.  A
workshop proceedings will be published and will be  mailed to all
the attendees.


                  Attendance limited to: 100
   Presentation/participation Request due by: April 25, 1986
    Notification of participation acceptance by: May 9, 1986
           Camera-ready papers due by: June 5, 1986


Workshop Chairman:                            ARO Representative:

Prof. James D. Johannes                       Dr. C. Ronald Green
Computer Science                             Army Research Office
The University of Alabama in Huntsville            P.O. Box 12211
Huntsville, AL  35899                       Research Triangle Pk.
Tel: (205) 895-6255/6088                           NC, 27709-2211
uucp: akgua!uahcs1!johannes                   Tel: (919) 549-0641
arpanet: johannes@brl                          arpanet: green@brl


Application for presentation/participation:
(Due by April 25, 1986)

Name: Dr/Mr/Ms/Miss/Mrs ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
Address: ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
         ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
Telephone number: (←←←←←)←←←←←←← - ←←←←←←←←←←
E-Mail(arpanet/uucp)←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
Name of the Government Agency, University, or Company:


               PROPOSED PRESENTATION INFORMATION
               (include 400-2000 word summary)

Topic area:
( ) Military Expert Systems   ( ) Vision   ( )  Image Processing
( ) Speech  ( ) Machine Translation  ( ) Other - Specify ←←←←←←←

Overall presentation category:
(  ) Theoretical        (  ) Experimental         (  ) Tutorial
(  ) Applied Research   (  ) Others

Military Application Area:

Title of proposed presentation:


                PROPOSED ATTENDEE INFORMATION
Topic area:
( ) Military Expert Systems   ( ) Vision    ( ) Image Processing
( ) Speech  ( ) Machine Translation  ( ) Other - Specify ←←←←←←←

Past Accomplishments in the Artificial Intelligence areas:

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂19-Mar-86  1932	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #60
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Mar 86  19:32:05 PST
Date: Wed 19 Mar 1986 10:39-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #60
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Wednesday, 19 Mar 1986     Volume 4 : Issue 60

Today's Topics:
  Project Description & New Publication - CSLI Monthly,
  Seminar Series - Computer Science Open House (SUNY Buffalo)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue 18 Mar 86 15:59:11-PST
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: CSLI Monthly, part I


                         C S L I   M O N T H L Y

  March 15, 1986                  Stanford                Vol. 1, No. 1

    A monthly publication of The Center for the Study of Language and
   Information, Ventura Hall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305


   Editor's note

   This is the first issue of CSLI's monthly report of research
   activities.  This issue introduces CSLI and then characterizes each of
   its current research projects; following issues will report on
   individual projects in more detail and discuss some of the research
   questions raised here.



   What is CSLI?

   CSLI is a research institute devoted to building theories about the
   nature of information and how it is conveyed, processed, stored, and
   transformed through the use of language and in computation.
   Researchers include computer scientists, linguists, philosophers,
   psychologists, and workers in artificial intelligence from several San
   Francisco Bay Area institutions as well as graduate students,
   postdoctoral fellows, and visiting scholars from around the world.
   [...]


   [The full description of the institute and its projects would take four
   AIList digests.  I am forwarding this fragment of the new monthly so that
   those who might be interested can request copies.  -- KIL]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 86 14:00:51 EST
From: "William J. Rapaport" <rapaport%buffalo.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar Series - Computer Science Open House (SUNY Buffalo)


            STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO

                 DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE

                   GRADUATE STUDENT OPEN HOUSE

On Thursday, March 20, 1986, the graduate students of the
SUNY Buffalo Dept. of Computer Science will be presenting
an all-day conference on their recent research (most of which is
on AI).  A tech report with extended abstracts will be available;
for further information, contact James Geller (geller%buffalo@csnet-relay).

ABSTRACTS OF TALKS

9:00 - 9:30

JON HULL, A Theory of Hypothesis Generation in Visual Word Recognition

An algorithm is presented that generates hypotheses about
the identity of a word of text from its image.  This
algorithm is part of an effort to develop techniques for
reading images of text that possess the human capability to
adapt to variations in fonts, scripts, etc.  This
methodology is being pursued by using knowledge about the
human reading process to direct the development of
algorithms for reading text.  The algorithm discussed in
this talk locates a set of hypotheses about the identity of
an input word (called the  neighborhood  of the input
word).

Results are reported in this talk on the size of
neighborhoods for words printed in lower case that are drawn
from a large text.  Several statistical measures are
computed from subsets of a text of over 1,000,000 words and
their corresponding dictionaries.  These results show that
the average neighborhood in the dictionary of the entire
text contains only 2.5 words.  The feasibilty of this method
is also shown by experimentation with a database of lower
case word images.  The application of this approach to 8700
word images taken from 29 different fonts, in three
conditions of noise, shows that the correct neighborhood is
determined in 80% to 100% of all cases.

9:30 - 10:00

GEORGE SICHERMAN, Databases that Refuse to Answer Queries

Question-answering systems must often keep certain information secret.
One way they can do this is by refusing to answer some queries.  But
if the user may be able to deduce information from the system's refusal
to answer, the secrecy of the information is broken.

In this talk I present a categorization of answer-refusing systems
according to what they know, what the user knows, and when the system
refuses to answer.  I also give two formal results about when the user
can deduce secrets from the system's refusals to answer, depending on
how much she knows about the system.

10:00 - 10:30

JANYCE WIEBE, Understanding De Re and De Dicto Belief Reports
                in Discourse and Narrative

Belief reports can be interpreted "de re" or "de dicto", and we
investigate the disambiguation of belief reports as they appear in
discourse and narrative.  In earlier work by Rapaport and Shapiro
[1984], representations for "de re" and "de dicto" belief reports were
presented, and the distinction between them was made solely on the
basis of their representations.  This analysis is sufficient only when
belief reports are considered in isolation.  We need to consider more
complicated belief structures in order to sufficiently represent "de
re" and "de dicto" belief reports as they appear in discourse and
narrative.  Further, we cannot meaningfully apply one, but not the
other, of the concepts "de re" and "de dicto" to these more complicated
belief structures.  We argue that the concepts "de re" and "de dicto"
apply not to an agent's conceptual representation of her beliefs, but
to the utterance of a belief report on a specific occasion.  A
cognitive agent interprets a belief report such as `` S believes that
 N  is  F '', or `` S  said, ` N  is  F ' '' (where  S  and  N are
names or descriptions, and  F  is an adjective) "de dicto" if she
interprets it from  N 's perspective, and "de re" if from her own.

10:45 - 11:15

MINGRUEY TAIE, Device Representation Using Instantiation Rules
                and Structural Templates

A device representation scheme for automatic electronic device fault
diagnosis is described.  Structural and functional descriptions of
devices (which are central to design-model-based fault diagnosis) are
represented as instantiation rules and structural templates in a
semantic network.  Device structure is represented hierarchically to
reflect the design model of most devices in the domain.  Each object
of the device hierarchy has the form of a module.  Instead of
representing all objects explicitly, an expandable component library
is maintained, and objects are instantiated only when needed.
The component library consists of descriptions of component "types"
used to construct devices at all hierarchical levels.  Each component
"type" is represented as an instantiation rule and a structural
template.  The instantiation rule is used to instantiate an object of
the component "type" as a module with I/O ports and associated
functional descriptions.  Functional description is represented as
procedural attachments to the semantic network; this allows the
simulation of the behavior of objects.  Structural templates describe
sub-parts and wire connections at the next lower hierarchical level of
the component "type".  Advantages of the representation scheme are
compactness and reasoning efficiency.

11:15 - 11:45

JAMES GELLER, Towards a Theory of Visual Reasoning

Visual Knowledge Representation has not yet found the treatment it
deserves as its own subfield of AI.  Visual reasoning is fundamentally
different from predicate calculus type logical reasoning and is of
central importance for the field of Visual Knowledge Representation.  A
systematization of different types of visual reasoning requires the
differentiation between purely geometrical reasoning and different
types of knowledge-based reasoning.  Knowledge-based reasoning in turn
can use knowledge about the world, knowledge about abstract
hierarchies, or knowledge about normality.  Research on visual
knowledge is directly applicable to graphics interface design for
intelligent systems.  The VMES maintenance expert system for circuit
board repair uses such a user interface which is designed in analogy to
a language generation program.

1:15 - 1:45

MICHAEL ALMEIDA, The Temporal Structure of Narratives

Narratives are a type of discourse used to describe sequences of
events. In order to understand a narrative, a reader must be able to extract
the ``story'', that is, the described events and the temporal relations
which hold between them, from the text. Our principle research goal has been
to develop a system which can read a narrative and produce a model of
the temporal structure of its story.

The principle heuristic used in constructing such a model is the
Narrative Convention:  unless we are given some signal to the contrary,
we assume that the events of the story occurred in the order in which
they are presented in the text. In addition, however, a reader must deal
with: (1) tense - in a standard past tense narrative the principle
distinction is between the past and the past perfect tenses, (2) aspect -
the distinction between events viewed perfectively or imperfectively,
(3) aspectual class - the intrinsic temporal properties of various
types of events, (4) time adverbials - these can be used to place
events within various calendrical intervals, give their durations,
or relate them directly to other events, and to some extent (5)
world-knowledge.

1:45 - 2:15

WEI-HSING WANG, A Uniform Knowledge Representation for Intelligent CAI Systems

In examining the current situation of Computer Aided Instruction
(CAI), we find that Intelligent CAI (ICAI) and its authoring system are
necessary.  By studying the knowledge representation methods and expert
system concepts, we choose a frame representation method to construct
an Intelligent Tutor, called ITES.  We show that a frame can be used
to represent knowledge in semantic nets, procedures and production
rules.  Furthermore, this method is very convenient in authoring
system creation.

2:15 - 2:45

RICK LIVELY, Semantics for Abstract Data Types

An abstract data type is  often defined as a
pair < A ,  S >, where  A  is a set (of objects) and
 S  is a set of operations defined on cartesian
products of the types of the objects.  Axiomatic
methods are used to develop specifications for
the defined data type.

Semantics for abstract data types have
been treated by Adj using initial algebras, and
by Janssen (inspired by Montague semantics)
using many-sorted algebras.  A comparison
is made of the mathematical properties
and applicability to computer science of
these approaches.

3:00 - 3:30

SCOTT CAMPBELL, Using Belief Revision to Detect Faults in Circuits

To detect faults in electrical circuits,
programs must be able to reason about whether
the observed inputs and outputs are consistent
with the desired function of the circuit.
The SNePS Belief Revision System (SNeBR) is designed to reason about
the consistency of rules and hypotheses defined within a particular
context or belief space.
This paper shows how belief revision can be used for fault detection
in circuits, and so leads to a unification of the fields of belief
revision (also known as truth maintenance) and fault detection.

3:30 - 4:00

DOUGLAS H. MacFADDEN, DUNE: A Demon Based Expert System Architecture
                        for Complex and Incompletely Defined Domains

Traditional expert system architectures use the rule (an `` if ...
then ''  data structure) as the primary unit of knowledge.  The primary
unit of knowledge in the DUNE system architecture is the demon.  Each
DUNE  demon  is  an  individual processing element that can contain a
variety of types of data and can perform a variety of  operations  on
its  data.   Each demon can communicate with any other demon or with
the user via messages.  Typical data for these demons may be a
traditional type rule, a list of weight values for the features in the
left-hand-side of the rule, an (English) description of each feature,
a  list  of  related  demons,  etc.   Typical operations that these
demons may perform are: calculating the ``closeness'' of  the  rule  to
firing,  calculating the most important feature of the rule yet to be
resolved, telling the system  to  not  consider  this  demon  anymore
(entering a sleep state), telling other demons (and the user) that the
demon is either satisfied or will never be satisfied, etc.

We hope to show that  these  features  of  DUNE  demons  can  be
exploited  to  express the knowledge of many expert domains that have
proven unfeasible to traditional expert system architectures.

4:00 - 4:30

JOYCE DANIELS, Understanding Time and Space in Narrative Text

The Graduate Group in Cognitive Science at SUNY at Buffalo is an
interdisciplinary group of faculty and graduate students.  Participants
in the group's activities come from over seventeen departments within
the university and local colleges in Western New York and Canada.
There are six core faculty and
their graduate students, comprising a standing research group investigating
how we understand movement through time and space in narrative text.
This research addresses both the general issue of how time
and space are expressed in language, and specific individual disciplinary
interests such as identifying the exact lexical items signaling movement;
developing experiments to collect data on the
psychological validity of the supposed influence of suspected lexical items;
examining the problems encountered by speech pathologists when a client
cannot understand spatial or temporal concepts in language; and
artificial intelligence program models of human and linguistic data on
the SNePS network.

Research conducted by group members has resulted in the identification
of what we term the ``Deictic Center'' (DC).  This contains a WHO-point,
a WHEN-point, and a WHERE-point.  It is the locus of a
particular point in conceptual space-time.
We will explain the significance of the DC concept in greater detail.
and present some results of our linguistic and psychological
investigation.

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂20-Mar-86  2011	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #61
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Mar 86  20:11:10 PST
Date: Thu 20 Mar 1986 14:58-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #61
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Friday, 21 Mar 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 61

Today's Topics:
  Publications - Japanese Technical Reports

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 19 Mar 86 19:38:21 pst
From: eugene@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Eugene Miya)
Subject: New Japanese Technical Reports at Stanford

Richard Manuck of the Stanford Math/CS library and I are soliciting
parties interested in helping to foot the cost of translating
some technical reports from ICOT.  The list is included below, and
several are in English.  Many unlisted reports have come (150 total)
which do not even have their titles translated.  We are seeking organizations
in the San Francisco Area who might be interested in footing the cost of
translation of some of these reports.  The cost will run between
$50-100 per hour (not cheap).  Demand for this service is high.
Richard and I are seeking either an organization (perhaps H-P?)
to do the work, or help pay for the work.  The content of the reports
vary considerably from statements of requirements and highly
technical documents.  Several appear, on loose translation, to be
"interesting."  Please contact me if your organization can help.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-nas
  {decwrl,ihnp4,hao,menlo70,allegra,hplabs,riacs,tektronix}!ames!eugene UUCP

                              STANFORD UNIVERSITY
                        MATH & COMPUTER SCIENCE LIBRARY

                               NEW Japanese REPORTS LIST

102667   SEVERAL ASPECTS ON UNIFICATION.
         T. Adachi et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0046.
         1984.]

102671   OBJECT ORIENTED PARSER IN THE LOGIC PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE ESP.
         H. Miyoshi and K. Furukawa.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0053.
         1984.]

102673   UNIQUE FEATURES OF ESP.
         T. Chikayama.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0055.
         1984.]

102674   A CONSTRAINT BASED DYNAMIC SEMANTIC MODEL FOR LOGIC DATABASES.
         T. Miyachi et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0056.
         1984.]

102675   WRITING IN A FOREIGN LANGUAGE AND PROGRAMMING IN WARNIER'S
         METHODOLOGY - A STUDY OF PROGRAMMING PROCESSES.
         A. Taguchi.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0057.
         1984.]

102676   MAID: A MAN-MACHINE INTERFACE FOR DOMESTIC AFFAIRS.
         S. Hiroyuki.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0058.
         1984.]

102677   PROBLEMS IN DEVELOPING AN EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEM ABLE TO REUSE EXISTING
         PROGRAMS.
         Y. Nagai, E. Chigira, and M. Kobayashi.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0059.
         1984.]

102683   AN OPERATING SYSTEM FOR SEQUENTIAL INFERENCE MACHINE PSI.
         T. Hattori et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0065.
         1984.]

102690   SYNTACTIC PARSING WITH POPS - ITS PARSING TIME ORDER AND THE
         COMPARISON WITH OTHER SYSTEMS.
         H. Hirakawa and K. Furukawa.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0073.
         1984.]

102691   PROGRESS IN THE INITIAL STAGE OF THE FGCS PROJECT.
         K. Takei.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0074.
         1984.]

102694   A PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE ON SOME ASPECTS OF THE FGCS - PRELIMINARY
         CONSIDERATIONS FOR FIFTH-GENERATION-COMPUTER NETWORKS.
         A. Taguchi.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0077.
         1984.]

102699   WIRING DESIGN EXPERT SYSTEM FOR VLSI: WIREX.
         H. Mori et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0083.
         1984.]

102700   GDLO: A GRAMMAR DESCRIPTION LANGUAGE BASED ON DCG.
         T. Morishita and H. Hirakawa.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0084.
         1984.]

102701   DELTA DEMONSTRATION AT ICOT OPEN HOUSE.
         K. Murakami et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0085.
         1984.]

102702   THE BOYER-MOORE THEOREM PROVER IN PROLOG. USER'S MANUAL.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0086.
         1984. V3.6, November 1984.]

102703   KNUTH-BENDIX ALGORITHM FOR THUE SYSTEM BASED ON KACHINUKI ORDERING.
         K. Sakai.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0087.
         1984.]

102707   SOURCE-LEVEL OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUES FOR PROLOG.
         H. Sawamura, T. Takeshima, and A. Kato.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0091.
         1985.]

102710   PROTOTYPING A DIALOGING SYSTEM WITH A TOPIC MANAGEMENT FUNCTION.
         T. Miyachi et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0094.
         1985.]

102711   CONSTRAINT-BASED LOGIC DATABASE MANAGEMENT: STRUCTURING
         META-KNOWLEDGE IN DATABASE MANAGEMENT.
         T. Miyachi et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0095.
         1985.]

102713   SOME CONSIDERATIONS ON ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF INTELLIGENT HUMAN
         INTERFACES.
         A. Taguchi.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0097.
         1985.]

102715   SOME ASPECTS OF FUTURE KNOWLEDGE-COMMUNICATION NETWORKS AS
         INFRASTRUCTURE FOR FIFTH GENERATION COMPUTERS.
         A. Taguchi.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0099.
         1985.]

102716   CONSTRUCTING THE SIMPOS SUPERVISOR IN AN OBJECT-ORIENTED APPROACH.
         T. Hattori, N. Yoshida, and T. Fujisaki.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0100.
         1985.]

102717   SOME EXPERIMENTS ON EKL.
         M. Hagiya and S. Hayashi.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0101.
         1985.]

102719   SOME ASPECTS OF GENERALIZED PHRASE STRUCTURE GRAMMAR.
         S. Amano et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0103.
         1985.]

102721   DESIGN OF A HIGH-SPEED PROLOG MACHINE (HPM).
         R. Nakazaki et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0105.
         1985.]

102725   WIREX: VSLI WIRING DESIGN EXPERT SYSTEM.
         H. Mori et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0109.
         1985.]

102728   PSI FONT EDITOR USER GUIDE.
         H. Touati.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0112.
         1985.]

102731   PSI FONT EDITOR IMPLEMENTATION NOTES.
         H. Touati.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0115.
         1985.]

102762   SOME COMMENTS ON SEMANTICAL DISK CACHE MANAGEMENT FOR KNOWLEDGE BASE
         SYSTEMS.
         H. Schweppe.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-040.
         1984.]

102763   [SIMULATOR OF XP'S]
         M. Aso.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-041.
         1984. IN JAPANESE. English abstract.]

102764   AN APPROACH TO A PARALLEL INFERENCE MACHINE BASED ON CONTROL-DRIVEN
         AND DATA-DRIVEN MECHANISMS.
         R. Onai, M. Asou, and A. Takeuchi.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-042.
         1984.]

102765   [MANDALA: KNOWLEDGE PROGRAMMING SYSTEM ON LOGIC PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE]
         K. Furukawa, A. Takeuchi, and S. Kunifuji.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-043.
         1984. IN JAPANESE. English abstract.]

102766   ESP REFERENCE MANUAL.
         T. Chikayama.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-044.
         1984.]

102767   THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A PERSONAL SEQUENTIAL INFERENCE
         MACHINE: PSI.
         M. Yokota et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-045.
         1984.]

102768   DIALOGUE MANAGEMENT IN THE PERSONAL SEQUENTIAL INFERENCE MACHINE
         (PSI).
         J. Tsuji et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-046.
         1984.]

102769   [PROLOG SOURCE LEVEL OPTIMIZER: CATALOGUE OF OPTIMIZATION METHODOLOGY]
         H. Sawamura.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-047.
         1984. IN JAPANESE. No English abstract. By H. Sawamura et al.]

102770   [ANALYSIS OF SEQUENTIAL PROLOG PROGRAM]
         R. Onai.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-048.
         1984. IN JAPANESE. No English abstract. By R. Onai et al.]

102771   [META-INFERENCE AND ITS APPLICATION IN A LOGIC PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE]
         S. Kunifuji et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-049.
         1984. IN JAPANESES. No English abstract.]

102772   [ARCHITECTURE OF DATAFLOW PARALLEL INFERENCE MACHINE]
         T. Ito.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-050.
         1984. IN JAPANESE. No English abstract. By T. Ito et al.]

102773   [SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SUPPORTING SYSTEM]
         M. Sugimoto.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-051.
         1984. IN JAPANESE. No English abstract.]

102774   [HARDWARE DESIGN OF PERSONAL SEQUENTIAL INFERENCE MACHINE]
         K. Taki.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-052.
         1984. IN JAPANESE. No English abstract. By K. Taki et al.]

102775   A RELATIONAL DATABASE MACHINE WITH LARGE SEMICONDUCTOR DISK AND
         HARDWARE RELATIONAL ALGEBRA PROCESSOR.
         S. Shibayama et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-053.
         1984.]

102776   [THE CONCEPTUAL SPECIFICATION OF THE KERNEL LANGUAGE, VERSION 1]
         K. Furukawa et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-054.
         1984. IN JAPANESE. No English abstract.]

102777   SIMPOS: AN OPERATING SYSTEM FOR A PERSONAL PROLOG MACHINE PSI.
         T. Hattori, J. Tsuji, and T. Yokoi.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-055.
         1984.]

102778   THE CONCEPTS AND FACILITIES OF SIMPOS SUPERVISOR.
         T. Hattori and T. Yokoi.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-056.
         1984.]

102779   OVERALL DESIGN OF SIMPOS (SEQUENTIAL INFERENCE MACHINE PROGRAMMING
         AND OPERATING SYSTEM).
         S. Takagi et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-057.
         1984.]

102780   PROLOG-BASED EXPERT SYSTEM FOR LOGIC DESIGN.
         F. Maruyama et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-058.
         1984.]

102781   THE CONCEPTS AND FACILITIES OF SIMPOS FILE SYSTEM.
         T. Hattori and T. Yokoi.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-059.
         1984.]

102782   A NOTE ON THE SET ABSTRACTION IN LOGIC PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE.
         T. Yokomori.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-060.
         1984.]

102783   COORDINATOR - THE KERNEL OF THE PROGRAMMING SYSTEM FOR THE PERSONAL
         SEQUENTIAL INFERENCE MACHINE (PSI).
         T. Kurokawa and S. Tojo.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-061.
         1984.]

102784   AN ORDERING METHOD FOR TERM REWRITING SYSTEMS.
         K. Sakai.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-062.
         1984.]

102785   DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RELATIONAL DATABASE ENGINE.
         H. Sakai et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-063.
         1984.]

102786   QUERY PROCESSING FLOW ON RDBM DELTA'S FUNCTIONALLY-DISTRIBUTED
         ARCHITECTURE.
         S. Shibayama et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-064.
         1984.]

102787   EFFICIENT STREAM/ARRAY PROCESSING IN LOGIC PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE.
         K. Ueda and T. Chikayama.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-065.
         1984.]

102788   DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A TWO-WAY MERGE-SORTER AND ITS
         APPLICATION TO RELATIONAL DATABASE PROCESSING.
         K. Iwata et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-066.
         1984.]

102789   NATURAL LANGUAGE BASED SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM TELL.
         H. Enomoto et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-067.
         1984.]

102790   FORMAL SPECIFICATION AND VERIFICATION FOR CONCURRENT SYSTEMS BY TELL.
         H. Enomoto et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-068.
         1984.]

102791   [KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION (FOR WG4 WORKSHOP '83)]
         F. Mizoguchi and K. Furukawa.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-070.
         1984. IN JAPANESE. No English abstract. Edited by F. Mizoguchi and K.
         Furukawa.]

102792   DESIGN CONCEPT FOR A SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT CONSULTATION SYSTEM.
         M. Sugimoto, H. Kato, and H. Yoshida.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-071.
         1984.]

102793   COMPARISON OF CLOSURE REDUCTION AND COMBINATORY REDUCTION SCHEMES.
         T. Ida and A. Konagaya.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-072.
         1984.]

102794   [APPROACH TO TRANSLATION IN MORE NATURAL WAY (1)]
         H. Tanaka.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-073.
         1984. IN JAPANESE. No English abstract. By H. Tanaka et al.]

102795   AN OVERVIEW OF RELATIONAL DATABASE MACHINE DELTA.
         N. Miyazaki et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-074.
         1984.]

102796   HARDWARE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PERSONAL SEQUENTIAL
         INFERENCE MACHINE (PSI).
         K. Taki et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-075.
         1984.]

102797   MANDALA: A LOGIC BASED KNOWLEDGE PROGRAMMING SYSTEM.
         K. Furukawa et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-076.
         1984.]

102798   [PARALLEL INFERENCE MACHINE PIM-R: ITS ARCHITECURE AND SOFTWARE
         SIMULATION]
         R. Onai.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-077.
         1984. IN JAPANESE. No English abstract. By R. Onai et al.]

102799   [PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTING KNOWLEDGE ARCHITECTURE]
         H. Kondou.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-078.
         1984. IN JAPANESE. No English abstract.]

102800   [A MICROPROGRAMMED INTERPRETER FOR THE PERSONAL SEQUENTIAL INFERENCE
         MACHINE PSI]
         A. Yamamoto.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-079.
         1984. IN JAPANESE. No English abstract. By A. Yamamoto et al.]

102801   [THE DEVELOPMENT OF EXPERIMENTAL QA-SYSTEMS ON SITUATION SEMANTICS]
         T. Kato.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-080.
         1984. IN JAPANESE. No English abstract.]

102802   [THE COMPOUND LOCAL AREA NETWORK INI - ITS PHYSICAL NETWORK
         CONFIGURATION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF PHYSICAL LAYER PROTOCOLS]
         A. Taguchi.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-081.
         1984. IN JAPANESE. No English abstract. By A. Taguchi et al.]

102803   CURRENT STATUS AND FUTURE PLANS OF THE FIFTH GENERATION COMPUTER
         SYSTEMS PROJECT.
         K. Kawanobe.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-083.
         1984.]

102804   ARCHITECTURES AND HARDWARE SYSTEMS: PARALLEL INFERENCE MACHINE AND
         KNOWLEDGE BASE MACHINE.
         K. Murakami, T. Kakuta, and R. Onai.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-084.
         1984.]

102805   BASIC SOFTWARE SYSTEM.
         K. Furukawa and T. Yokoi.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-085.
         1984.]

102806   SEQUENTIAL INFERENCE MACHINE: SIM PROGRESS REPORT.
         S. Uchida and T. Yokoi.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-086.
         1984.]

102807   SEQUENTIAL INFERENCE MACHINE: SIM - ITS PROGRAMMING AND OPERATING
         SYSTEM.
         T. Yokoi and S. Uchida.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-087.
         1984.]

102808   RECURSIVE UNSOLVABILITY OF DETERMINACY, SOLVABLE CASES OF DETERMINACY
         AND THEIR APPLICATIONS TO PROLOG OPTIMIZATION.
         H. Sawamura and T. Takeshima.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-088.
         1984.]

102809   THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF RELATIONAL DATABASE MACHINE DELTA.
         T. Kakuta et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-089.
         1984.]

102810   A SEQUENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF CONCURRENCT PROLOG BASED ON THE
         SHALLOW BINDING SCHEME.
         T. Miyazaki, A. Takeuchi, and T. Chikayama.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-090.
         1984.]

102811   CONCURRENT PROLOG ON TOP OF PROLOG.
         K. Ueda and T. Chikayama.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-092.
         1984.]

102812   OCCAM TO CMOS EXPERIMENTAL LOGIC DESIGN SUPPORT SYSTEM.
         T. Mano et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-093.
         1984.]

102813   FORMULATION OF INDUCTION FORMULAS IN VERIFICATION OF PROLOG PROGRAMS.
         T. Kanamori and H. Fujita.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-094.
         1984.]

102814   TYPE INFERENCE IN PROLOG AND ITS APPLICATIONS.
         T. Kanamori and K. Horiuchi.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-095.
         1984.]

102815   VERIFICATION OF PROLOG PROGRAMS USING AN EXTENSION OF EXECUTION.
         T. Kanamori and H. Seki.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-096.
         1984.]

102816   PRINCIPLES OF OBJ2.
         J. A. Goguen, J.-P. Jouannaud, and J. Meseguer.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-097.
         1984.]

102817   LOGIC DESIGN: ISSUES IN BUILDING KNOWLEDGE-BASED DESIGN SYSTEMS.
         F. Maruyama et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-098.
         1984.]

102818   DATA-FLOW BASED EXECUTION MECHANISMS OF PARALLEL AND CONCURRENT
         PROLOG.
         N. Ito et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-099.
         1984.]

102819   HORN CLAUSE LOGIC WITH PARAMETERIZED TYPES FOR SITUATION SEMANTICS
         PROGRAMMING.
         K. Mukai.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-101.
         1985.]

102820   TOWARDS AUTOMATED SYNTHETIC DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 1 - BASIC
         CATEGORICAL CONSTRUCTION.
         S. Hayashi.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-104.
         1985.]

102821   ARCHITECTURE OF REDUCTION-BASED PARALLEL INFERENCE MACHINE: PIM-R.
         R. Onai et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-105.
         1985.]

102822   [OPERATION MANUAL FOR QUTE PROCESSOR]
         T. Sakurai and M. Fujita.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-106.
         1985. IN JAPANESE. No English abstract.]

102823   [FOUNDATIONS AND APPLICATIONS OF KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING: PROLOG-BASED
         KNOWLEDGE BASE MANAGEMENT]
         S. Kunifuji et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-107.
         1985. IN JAPANESE. No English abstract.]

Many more only in the Kanji and Kana.

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂20-Mar-86  2255	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #62
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Mar 86  22:54:02 PST
Date: Thu 20 Mar 1986 15:06-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #62
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Friday, 21 Mar 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 62

Today's Topics:
  Publications - Prolog Books & Prolog Tutorial Software,
  Comment - Uses of FORTRAN,
  Theory : Turing Test & Computer Intelligence

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 86 13:47:46 GMT
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Re: PROLOG Books

``Start Problem Solving with PROLOG" by Tom Conlon.
Published in 1985 by Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, U.K.
ISBN 0-201-18270-X.
This book uses micro-PROLOG (available for Sinclair
Spectrum/(Timex 2000?) and IBM PC, for example). It
includes many examples and complete programs, one,
for example, for playing Tic-Tac-Toe.

Gordon Joly
ARPA: gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 86 02:50:44 GMT
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!utai!uthub!utecfa!logicwa
      @ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Logicware)
Subject: new Prolog textbook/tutorial software

Readers may be interested in a new Prolog textbook and tutorial
software that myself and two colleagues have put together.
The package is called:
    The MPROLOG Primer

The book --- A Primer for Logic Programming --- is a 500 page
textbook (18 chapters) with many example programs that are
fully explained.

The tutorial software --- MTUTOR --- contains 9 tutorials on
execution subjects (backtracking, recursion and so forth) and
instruction in use of the built-in predicates.  In addition,
there is a "freeform" area where you can enter and test you
own programs.

The package is intended both as a general introduction to logic
programming and to Prolog.  It should be of interest to:
    -- anyone wanting an inexpensive introduction to Prolog
    -- anyone requiring an introductory textbook to teach Prolog
    -- anyone who is familiar with other Prologs but who want to
       make an assessment of MProlog before purchasing the
       language.

The tutorial software which accompanies the book will run on the
following machines:
      -- IBM PC/XT/AT (and compatibles) (512K needed)
      -- Tektronix 4404
      -- VAX/VMS
      -- VAX/UNIX
      -- ISI
and portings are currently underway for:
      -- SUN
      -- APOLLO

Price of the package is 49.95 (US Funds)

For more information send electronic mail or contact our customer
service representative:
       Roger Walker,
       Logicware, 1000 Finch Ave. W.
       Suite 600,
       Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M3J 2V5
       416-665-0022

Richard J. Young

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 86 13:50:20 GMT
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Future AI Language (Vol 4 # 57).

Some AI packages  soon could have interfaces to numerical code,
particularly those in process control; expert systems will make
decisions about a fault, then a simulation, written in FORTRAN,
will be run to see if the fix will work.

Gordon Joly
ARPA: gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 86 11:59:30 GMT
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: More on Turing and the Turing test.

>From AIList Vol 4 # 56 :- ``: he [Turing] designed it to be nothing more
than a philosophical conversation-stopper.''

>From  "Turing's Man : Western Culture in the Computer Age",  by J. David
Bolter :-  `` It would be a machine that knew men and women better  than
they knew themselves.  Turing was optimistic about  the prospect of this
supercomputer : " I believe that in  about fifty years' time  it will be
plausible to  programme computers  ...  to make them play  the imitation
game so well that an  average interregator will not have more  than a 70
per cent  chance of making the right  identification after  five minutes
of questioning" (Feigenbaum and Feldman, Computers and Thought, 19).''

Since this is not directly quoting from Turing's own work,  it cannot be
regarded  as being the giving  the true version of his own hopes for the
test.  Bolter continues in the  next paragraph with :- ``  The appeal of
Turing's test is easy to understand.  It offers an operational defintion
of intelligence  quite in the  spirit of  behavioral psychology  in  the
postwar era. A programmer can measure success by statistics - the number
of human subjects fooled by the machine.''

Gordon Joly
ARPA: gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 86 13:49:26 GMT
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: More on IQ tests for Computers.

           ``How a pair of dull-witted programs
           can look like geniuses on I.Q. tests.''
This article appeared  in the March issue  of Scientific American
in the Computer Recreations column of A.K.Dewdney which discusses
the concept of an IQ test for computers, (cf Vol 3 # 164 et seq).
He  mentions the HI Q  program  of Marcel Feenstra,  which solves
problems of  the "sequence completion"  and "numerical analogies"
types. This scores 160 on the corresponding parts of the IQ tests
described by Hans J. Eysenck.  Dewdney describes his own putative
program SE Q.
Dewdney paraphrases ``The Mismeasure of Man'' by Stephen J. Gould
and says :- ``What it comes to is this: The traditional I.Q. test
rests on the unstated assumption that intelligence, like strength,
is a single quality of human physiology that can be measured by a
graded series of tasks.''
So far, so good.
He  then  quotes  Gould  directly :- `` Our brains are enormously
complex computers''.
Hmmm... getting a bit fishy.
Finally, he says :- `` Does  the score on  the  test measure  the
intelligence of the computer?  If it does not,  just how does one
go about measuring the intelligence of a computer, whether it is
made of silicon and  plastic  or carbon and  tissue?  The answer:
Probably not by running some I.Q. program through a battery of
tests.''
Two gripes with this. Who are the carbon/tissue *computers* he is
talking about?  Secondly, computers will  never be "intelligent";
however software might *appear* intelligent in certain respects.
Nuff said.

Gordon Joly
ARPA: gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj

P.S. Funny, I thought the Answer was 42.

`` The monkey spoke!'' - Zaphod Beeblebrox on Arthur Dent.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 86 15:51:04 GMT
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Future Ph.D.

The worlds first Ph.D. to an AI system awarded today for PiQ's work
in the field of ...

The World Times, 2185.

The Joka.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 86 08:34:35 -0500
From: johnson <johnson@dewey.udel.EDU>
Subject: Re: The Turing Test - A Third Quantisation?


|Now,  supposing a system  has been built which  "passes" the test. Why
|not take  the process  one stage  further?  Why not  try to design  an
|intelligent system which can decide whether *it* is talking to machine
|or not?
|
|Gordon Joly
|ARPA: gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
|UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj


Let me get this straight, a human cannot distinguish machine M1 from another
human, but machine M2 *can* distinguish M1 from a human. Will machines of type
M2 then debate about whether it is possible for a human to be modified to pass
the M2turing test?  Alternatively, perhaps M2s should try to create M3 s.t.
an M3 cannot be distinguished from a human by an M2, or how about an M4, which
is a machine that an M2 cannot distinguish from an M1?  But wait, how can an
M2 be sure that an M4 is not simply a copy of an M1?  Is some descendent of the
turing test a test that which tries to infer the nature of the designer from
the design?

-johnson@UDEL.EDU

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂26-Mar-86  0128	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #63
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Mar 86  01:28:02 PST
Date: Tue 25 Mar 1986 22:44-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #63
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Wednesday, 26 Mar 1986     Volume 4 : Issue 63

Today's Topics:
  Seminars - Parallel OPS5 and Relational Algebraic Operators (UPenn) &
    Mental Representation of Bilinguals (BBN) &
    Cognitive Model of Ada-Based Development (SMU) &
    An Interactive Proof Editor (Edinburgh) &
    Graphical Access To Expert Systems (PARC) &
    Automatic Design of Graphical Presentations (SU),
  Conference - Expert Systems in Process Safety &
    Artificial Intelligence Impacts Forum

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 19 Mar 86 21:25 EST
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - Parallel OPS5 and Relational Algebraic Operators (UPenn)

Forwarded From: Glenda Kent <Glenda@UPenn> on Wed 19 Mar 1986 at  9:52


          OPS5 PRODUCTION SYSTEMS AND RELATIONAL ALGEBRAIC OPERATORS
                        ON A MASSIVELY PARALLEL MACHINE

                               Bruce K. Hillyer
                              Columbia University

AI  production  systems  and  relational  database  management  systems exhibit
complementary characteristics that suggest the  possibility  of  a  synergistic
integration.    One difficulty is that both types of systems execute relatively
slowly.

This talk discusses algorithms, performance analyses,  and  simulation  results
for  the  execution  of  database  queries and production systems on a parallel
machine called  NON-VON.    The  results  indicate  that  relational  algebraic
operations   will   be   processed  as  fast  as  on  special-purpose  database
architectures, with speedup linear in the size of the machine, and typical OPS5
production systems will fire more than 850 rules per second.

                           Thursday, March 20, 1986
                            Room 216 - Moore School
                             3:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 1986 07:55-EST
From: Brad Goodman <BGOODMAN at BBNG>
Subject: Seminar - Mental Representation of Bilinguals (BBN)

           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


               BBN Labs AI/Education Seminar

Speaker:  Prof. Molly Potter, MIT

Title:    The Mental Representation of Bilinguals

Date:     Friday, March 21st, 2:00pm
Place:    2nd floor large conference room,
          BBN Labs, 10 Moulton Street, Cambridge


   Are the two lexicons of a bilingual directly interconnected, or
   connected via only a common, nonlexical concept?  Two experiments
   on that question will be discussed, one with novice bilinguals
   and one with expert bilinguals (Potter, So, von Eckardt and
   Feldman, 1984).  Related issues concerning mental representation
   in bilinguals will be raised for general discussion.

------------------------------

Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: Seminar - Cognitive Model of Ada-Based Development (SMU)

Computer Science and Engineering Seminar
Toward A Cognitive Model of Ada Based Embedded System Development
Jerry Snodgrass, Southern Methodist University
(Seminar already held, announcement for record only)


Embedded systems, such as aircraft avionic and hospital intensive car
eunit systems, have been developed for several years.  But, the early
steps of the development process have not been researched.  The
related research in software engineering has focused on the artifact
and almost entirely ignored the design p rocess used to develop the
artifact.  In contrast, the artificial intelligence reeserch
(particularly automatic programming, knowledge-based assistant and
cognition research) has forced a more detailed investigation of the
design processes used in programming.  In this seminar emprical
research results are presented along with conceptual results requiring
further research.  The empirical results show that the human problem
solving control in the early steps of embedded system development is
essentially the same as the recent cognitive research results in
algorithm and software design.  The planned research, for which most
of the conceptual work has been accomplished, involves
1) integrating the Ada language, object-oriented paradigm, and
empirical results into a Uniform Modularity model; and 2) developing a
frame-based software tool to guide and record the process of
determining the structure of the embedded system being developed.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 86 10:34:10 GMT
From: Gideon Sahar <gideon%edai.edinburgh.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
Subject: Seminar - An Interactive Proof Editor (Edinburgh)

EDINBURGH AI SEMINARS

Date:   Wednesday 19th March l986
Time:   2.00 p.m.
Place:  Department of Artificial Intelligence
        Seminar Room
        Forrest Hill
        EDINBURGH.

Professor R. Burstall, Department of Computer Science, University of
Edinburgh will give a seminar entitled - "An Interactive Proof Editor".

This proof editor works like a structure editor for programmes but
enables one to create proofs in first order intuitionist logic.   It
uses attribute grammar techniques with local re-evaluation of
attributes.   The idea is due to Tom Reps at Cornell, and the work was
done jointly with Brian Ritchie and Tatsuya Hagino.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Mar 86 15:08 PST
From: Ahenderson.pa@Xerox.COM
Reply-to: Ahenderson.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: Seminar - Graphical Access To Expert Systems (PARC)


                        PARC Forum

                Thursday, March 27
                4PM, PARC Auditorium

Ted Shortlife and Larry Fagan
Medical Computer Science Group
Knowledge Systems Laboratory
Stanford Medical School


GRAPHICAL ACCESS TO EXPERT SYSTEMS:  EXAMPLES FROM THE ONCOCIN SYSTEM


The research goals of Stanford's Medical Computer Science group are
directed both toward the basic science of artificial intelligence and
toward the development of clinically useful consultation tools.  Our
approach has been eclectic, drawing on fields such as decision analysis,
interactive graphics, and both qualitative and probabilistic simulation
as well as AI.  In this presentation we will discuss ONCOCIN, an advice
system designed to suggest optimal therapy for patients undergoing
cancer treatment, as well as to assist in the data management tasks
required to support research treatment plans (protocols).  A prototype
version, developed in Interlisp and SAIL  on a DEC-20, was used between
May 1981 and May 1985 by oncology faculty and fellows in the Debbie
Probst Oncology Day Care Center at the Stanford University Medical
Center.  In recent years, however, we have spent much of our time
redesigning ONCOCIN to run on Xerox 1100 series workstations and to take
advantage of the graphics environment provided on those machines.  The
physician's interface has been redesigned to approximate the appearance
and functionality of the paper forms traditionally used for recording
patient status.  We have also made changes to correct problems with the
prototype system noted during its clinical use during the early 1980's.
This has involved adopting an object-center knowledge base design which
has provided an increase in the speed of the program while providing
more flexible access to the large amount of knowledge required by the
system.  The workstation version of ONCOCIN has recently been introduced
in the Stanford clinic, and we will demonstrate its operation during the
presentation.  We will also describe and demonstrate OPAL, the knowledge
acquisition environment we have developed for ONCOCIN so that expert
oncologists can directly enter their knowledge of protocol-directed
cancer therapy using graphics-based forms developed in the Interlisp-D
environment.


This Forum is OPEN. All are invited.


Host: Austin Henderson  (Intelligent Systems Lab, 494-4308)

Refreshments will be served at 3:45 pm

Requests for videotaping should be sent to Susie Mulhern
<Mulhern:PA:Xerox or Mulhern.pa> before Tuesday noon.

------------------------------

Date: Wed 19 Mar 86 09:46:55-PST
From: Jock Mackinlay <JOCK@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - Automatic Design of Graphical Presentations (SU)

             Automatic Design of Graphical Presentations

                            PhD Oral Exam
                          Jock D. Mackinlay
                     Computer Science Department
                        Monday, March 31, 10am
                             History 205

The goal of the research described in this talk is to develop an
application-independent presentation tool that automatically designs
graphical presentations (e.g. bar charts, scatter plots, and connected
graphs) for relational information.  There are two major criteria for
evaluating designs of graphical presentations: expressiveness and
effectiveness.  Expressiveness means that a design expresses the
intended information.  Effectiveness means that a design exploits the
capabilities of the output medium and the human visual system.  A
presentation tool is intended to be used to build user interfaces.
However, a presentation tool will not be useful unless it generates
expressive and effective designs for a wide range of information.

This talk describes a theory of graphical presentations that can be used
to systematically generate a wide range of designs.  Complex designs are
described as compositions of primitive designs.  This theory leads to
the following synthesis algorithm:
    o First, the information is divided into components, each
      of which satisfies the expressiveness criterion for a
      primitive graphical design.
    o Next, a conjectural theory of human perception is used
      to select the most effective primitive design for each
      component.  An effective design requires perceptual
      tasks of low difficulty.
    o Finally, composition operators are used to compose the
      individual designs into a unified presentation of all
      the information.  A composition operator composes two
      designs when the same information is expressed the same
      way in both designs (identical parts are merged).

The synthesis algorithm has been implemented in a prototype presentation
tool, called APT (A Presentation Tool).  Even though only a few primitive
designs are implemented, APT can generate a wide range of designs that
express information effectively.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Mar 86 16:57:50 EST
From: Patty.Hodgson@ISL1.RI.CMU.EDU
Subject: Conference - Expert Systems in Process Safety

                       "CALL FOR PAPERS"

            EXPERT SYSTEMS AND COMPUTATIONAL METHODS
                      IN PROCESS SAFETY


      American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) Meeting

            Houston, Texas, March 29 - April 2, 1987

 Sponsored by the divisions on Computing and Systems Technology (10a)
                    and Safety and Health


Session Chair:                          Session Co-Chair:

Prof. V. Venkatasubramanian             Prof. E. J. Henley
Intelligent Process Engineering Lab     Dept. of Chemical Engineering
Dept. of Chemical Engineering           University of Houston
Columbia University                     University Park
New York, NY  10027                     Houston, TX  77004
Tel: (212) 280-4453                     Tel: (713) 749-4407

Papers are solicited in the areas of Expert Systems and Computational
Methods in Process Safety for the Houston AIChE Meeting.  Topics of
interest include Process Plant Diagnosis, Process Safety and
Reliability, Process Risk Analysis etc.  Please submit TWO copies of the
abstract by "MAY 15, 1986" to both the session chairman and co-
chairman at the addresses given above.

Final manuscripts of the accepted papers are due by October 15, 1986.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 86 16:02:23 GMT
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!burdvax!ted@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ted Hermann)
Subject: Conference - Artificial Intelligence Impacts Forum

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IMPACTS FORUM

            PRESENTED

                BY

  AMERICAN COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


          May 13, 1986


          St. Davids Inn
      St. Davids, Pennsylvania


    American Computer Technologies, Inc.
      237 Lancaster Avenue, Suite 255
          Devon, PA 19333



WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES:

describe the business opportunities of Artificial Intelligence technologies

examine the strengths and limitations of these technologies

identify current AI products and services on the market and their potential
applications

analyze companies at the fore-front of the AI market and those expected to
enter soon

analyze current and emerging international markets for AI technology

clarify the business growth opportunities and threats associated with AI
technology

provide an understanding of the potential impact Artificial Intelligence
will have on business

identify promising new frontiers in AI research with applications to the
commercial and military sectors

analyze software and hardware needs for emerging AI markets and assess the
impacts on U.S. business



WORKSHOP SCHEDULE:

Tuesday Morning, 8:00 - 9:45 AM

I. Introduction

Opening Remarks
Creating Computers that Think
Emerging International AI Markets

II. Assessment of AI Opportunities

Expert Systems
Movement in Space
Vision
Natural Language Comprehension
Learning

Tuesday Morning, 10:15 - 12:00 AM

III. Analyses of AI Products and Services

Current/Future Software Packages
Stand-Alone AI Hardware
AI in Personal Computers
Embedded AI Systems
Knowledge Expert Services

IV. Assessment of Competitive Issues

Strategic Computing/Defense Initiatives
New Japanese MITI-ICOT Perspectives
Western European Consortia
Emerging Eastern Bloc Cooperation
Established AI Firms
Emerging AI Ventures
Joint Ventures and R&D Partnerships
Mergers and Acquisitions

Tuesday Lunch, 12:00 - 1:30 PM

IV. Strategic Risks and Constraints

Financial Risks
Social/Legal Risks
Technological Constraints
Market Constraints

Tuesday Afternoon, 2:00 - 3:30 PM

VI. Analyses of End-User Applications

Direct Military Applications
Software Engineering Applications
Non-Military Government Applications
Commercial Applications

Tuesday Afternoon, 3:45 - 5:00 PM

VII. Analyses of Global Trends

Fifth-Generation Machine Architectures
Emerging Fourth-Generation Languages
Other Major Technological Thrusts
Near-Real Time Systems
Economic impact of International AI Markets
Growth of AI products and services

WORKSHOP LEADERS

T. S. Hermann, Ph.D.,  President of American Computer Technologies,
Inc., has served as the Manager, Plans and Programs at Burroughs' Paoli
Research Center; Director of R&D at Analytics, Inc.; Sr. VP Technology of Sun
Company; President of Franklin Research Center; and President of Mellon
Institute, Carnegie-Mellon University.

Ronald L. Krutz, Ph.D., Director, Computer Engineering Center, Carnegie
Mellon University.

Lewis J. Petrovic, Ph.D., President, Resource Engineering, Inc.

B.K. Wesley Copeland, MBA, President, International Science &
Technology

G. Richard Patton, Ph.D., Ex.VP, Resource Assessment, Inc., and Faculty
Member, Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh


WHO SHOULD ATTEND?

The ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IMPACTS forum has been established primarily
to address the needs of business persons who are interested in or are
responsible for planning, marketing and manufacturing.

WHAT ARE THE MAJOR ISSUES?

This workshop will assess major AI product opportunities, explore fundamental
trends and market concepts of Artificial Intelligence and will go beyond
conventional strategic assertions within an International business context.

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?

THE WORKSHOP will answer the hard business questions of Artificial
Intelligence.  Participants will learn of the emerging AI business growth
opportunities; become aware of the key players and their product strategies;
analyze the growing international markets and potential competitors; acquire
forecasts of important technological impacts and thrusts; and will scutinize
the constraints and risks of the AI products.

For Information call Carol Ward, A.C.T., Inc. (215) 687-4015.

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂26-Mar-86  1427	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #64
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Mar 86  14:26:20 PST
Date: Tue 25 Mar 1986 23:00-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #64
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Wednesday, 26 Mar 1986     Volume 4 : Issue 64

Today's Topics:
  Queries - Expert Systems in Wine, Medicine, Documentation, Military &
    Parallel Implementation of Rule-Based Expert Systems &
    Reactions to Cliches & AI Market Survey & AI in Resource Management &
    Funding of AI Proposals

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 86 23:41:05 CST
From: S076786%UMRVMA.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: expert systems/enology

I'd like to contact individuals at university of califorinia-davis involved
with enology as it might pertain to expert systems/artificial intelligence.
Please send a list of anyone involved so that I might contact them in regard to
current research and development.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 86 22:07:16 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!ircil@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ircil N. Gentry)
Subject: HEME Medical Expert System


   I am looking for any information on the HEME medical expert
system - diagnosis of hematologic diseases. If you can help me,
please send any information or phone numbers and electronic
addresses of anyone associated with the project at either
Cornell Medical School or Cornell University. My electronic
address is ecsvax!ircil. Thank - you very much.
                                 Chip Gentry

------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 86 19:57:47 GMT
From: sdcsvax!drillsys!gatech!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!gknight@ucbvax.
      berkeley.edu  (gknight)
Subject: Neuropsychology expert system inquiry.


        Is anyone aware of research or development work on an
expert system for clinical neuropsychological assessment?

        If so, please send relevant information to me by e-mail
and I will summarize and post responses.

                             Thanks,

Gary Knight, 3604 Pinnacle Road, Austin, TX  78746  (512/328-2480).
Biopsychology Program, Univ. of Texas at Austin.  "There is nothing better
in life than to have a goal and be working toward it." -- Goethe.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 86 14:17:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!graham@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: towards better documentation


Toward better documentation:

Graham's law: The manual is useless.
Corollaries:
  1. It's not in the manual.
  2. If it is in the manual, you can't find it.
  3. If you find it, it's wrong.

I am interested in creating an expert system to serve as on-line documentation.
The intent is to abrogate the above law and corollaries.  Does anyone know of
such a system or any effort(s) to produce one?

I am an AI novice.  This system is to serve as my introduction to the field.
What referecnes should I read to get started on this?   What approach would
you recommend?

Marv Graham; Convex Computer Corp. {allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs,ctvax}!convex!graham

------------------------------

Date: 21 Mar 86 17:58:07 GMT
From: sdcsvax!noscvax!priebe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Carey E. Priebe)
Subject: rule-based expert system


We are searching for an EXISTING rule based expert system.

We intend to implement the selected system on a SIMD machine
using an experimental bit-vector approach to determine the
degree of performance enhancement.

Ideally we would like a time-sensitive, joint services appli-
cation, but any and all proposed systems will be considered.

The one characteristic the system MUST possess is rules.  The
closer the system is to a pure-production system the better.
We will recode the inference engine specifically for our parallel
processor.

Anyone with such a system in hand, or pointers to same, should
contact me either via the net or by phone.  Any help will be
greatly appreciated.

Additionally, anyone with information on any of the following
systems, please drop me a note:

        Application of A I to Tactical Operations
        Maj. Timothy Campen
        Don E Gordon, HRB-Singer,Inc

        Expert Systems for Intelligence Fusion
        R Peter Bonasso, The MITRE Corp.

        Expert System for Tactical I&W Analysis
        Douglas Lenat, Stanford
        Albert Clarkson, Garo Kiremidjian, ESL/TRW


                        Thanx,

                        Carey Priebe



*********************************
* carey priebe                  *
*                               *
* priebe@cod.UUCP               *
* priebe@nosc.UUCP              *
* priebe@cod.nosc.MIL           *
* ucbvax!sdcsvax!noscvax!priebe *
*                               *
* Naval Ocean Systems Center    *
* Code 421                      *
* San Diego, CA 92152           *
*                               *
* Ph. (619) 225-6571            *
*********************************

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 86 23:30 EST
From: KROVETZ%umass-cs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
Subject: cliche's

Does anyone know of any studies or literature relating to
the reactions of people the first time they hear a cliche'?

Thanks,
Bob

krovetz@umass (csnet)
krovetz%umass.csnet@csnet-relay (arpanet)

------------------------------

Date: Friday, 21 Mar 1986 05:33:05-PST
From: wachsmuth%gvaic2.DEC@decwrl.DEC.COM  (Markus Wachsmuth)
Subject: AI market(ing) issues.


Does anyone have solidly founded information concerning AI's market potential,
and present share of the software and hardware markets? In reply to this note,
(or directly to myself) I would appreciate responses for the US, Japanese, and
European S/W & H/W markets, in dollar values.

Are any AI market studies  available  for viewing? If you have copies,  please
either attach it as a response to this note, or send it directly to me.

Thank you, in anticipation, for your replies.

Markus Wachsmuth
43 Route de Prevessin
CH-1217 GENEVA, SWITZERLAND
wachsmuth%gvaic2.DEC@decwrl
wax%gvaic2.DEC@decwrl
wachsmuth%gva04.DEC@decwrl
wachsmuth%gvaeis.DEC@decwrl

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 86 13:43:30 est
From: munnari!trlvlsi.trl.oz!andrew@seismo.CSS.GOV
Subject: Small AI companies


I will be visiting the States later this year and I am looking for places
to visit active in AI. Whilst I am familiar with the larger companies and
academic institutions I am aware that I should also perhaps look for the
smaller companies active in AI. Can anyone help ? (Areas of interest :
application of AI to resource management (eg. network management), learning
research, design using AI).

ARPA: andrew%trlvlsi.trl.oz@seismo.css.gov
ACSNET: andrew@trlvlsi.trl
UUCP: !{seismo, mcvax, ucb-vision, ukc}!munnari!trlvlsi.trl!andrew
VOICE: +1 61 3 5416241

Andrew Jennings
Telecom Australia Research Laboratories,
P.O. Box 249
Clayton,  Victoria 3168,  AUSTRALIA.

------------------------------

Date: Mon 24 Mar 86 15:20:14-PST
From: Daniel Davison  <DAVISON@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: funding of AI proposals


I'm developing a pattern recognition system for specific biological
structures (helices in ribosomal RNAs).  After a demonstration version
is running (we are currently using OPS5), I'd like to apply for a grant to
continue the work.  I'd also like to apply to places other than ONR,
DARPA, and their friends..  I would like to know if there are non-DoD
agencies that fund AI work.  I don't think NIH would, but maybe NSF?

By the way, I'm familiar with the work of Abarbanel and coworkers on
pattern recognition for protein structure-this work would derive from
that work but not duplicate it.  If anyone knows of other biological AI-
guided pattern recognition, please drop me a line.

Thanks,
dan    (davison@sumex-aim.arpa, davison@bnl.arpa)
       best e-mail address: bchs6@uhupvm1.bitnet

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂02-Apr-86  0307	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #65
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 2 Apr 86  03:06:46 PST
Date: Sun 30 Mar 1986 22:34-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #65
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Monday, 31 Mar 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 65

Today's Topics:
  Seminars - Concurrent Processing with Result Sharing (SMU) &
    Planning by Procedural Inference (SRI) &
    Processes, Events, and the Frame Problem (CSLI) &
    Inexact Reasoning using Graphs (MIT),
  Conference - 1st Australian Applied AI Congress &
    Knowledge Representation Tools for Expert Systems &
    AI Impacts Workshop

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: Seminar - Concurrent Processing with Result Sharing (SMU)

Concurrent Processing with Result Sharing: A Unified View
of Efficient Computaitons

Speaker: S. Krishnaprasad, Southern Methodist University
         (kp%smu@csnet-relay convex!smu!kp)
Location: 315SIC, Southern Methodist University
Time 2:00 PM
Date: April 3, 1986

Abstract

A major aspect of efficient problem solving is to avoid
reduandant recomputations,  This talk identifies the need for and ways
to incorporate both problem structure and problem dynamics, in the context
of concurrent processing, for fast and efficient problem solving.

The notion of horizontal locality and vertical locality are introduced
to capture the essence of problem dynamics.  Algorithms for decomposition
under dynamics are discussed for a special class of computations.

A new model of problem solving called Concurrent Processing with Result
Sharing (CPRS) is defined along with measures that characterize efficiency
of problem solving.  In a general setting, this model is related to the notion
of working set under concurrent processing environment.  A simulation
strategy is presented to prove the usefulness of CPRS model when multiple
concurrent computations compete for limited computational resources.

------------------------------

Date: Wed 26 Mar 86 18:30:50-PST
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: Seminar - Planning by Procedural Inference (SRI)

                     PLANNING BY PROCEDURAL INFERENCE

                         Dan Carnese (CARNESE@SRI-KL)
                 AI Lab, Schlumberger Palo Alto Research (SPAR)

                   11:00 AM, MONDAY, March 31
         SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)

The standard approach to plan construction involves applying a general planning
algorithm to a representation of a problem to be solved.  This approach will
fail on a given problem when the search space explored by the algorithm is too
large.  If this occurs, the only alternatives are to re-encode the problem or
to improve the general algorithm.

In this talk, I'll describe an alternative approach where control of the
planning process is provided by a procedure which constructs proofs from
premises characterizing the domain.  This approach allows arbitrary
procedures to be used for control, while retaining the desirable property
that unsound inferences cannot be made.

The technique will be illustrated with examples from the domain of
computer-aided manufacturing.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 86  1134 PST
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - Processes, Events, and the Frame Problem (CSLI)


                   PROCESSES, EVENTS, AND THE FRAME PROBLEM

                             Michael Georgeff

                Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International
                                  and
                Center for the Study of Language and Information
                           Stanford University

                    Thursday, March 27, 3pm  (NB: New time!)
                                 MJH 252


In this talk we will consider various models of actions and events
suited to reasoning about multiple agents situated in dynamic
environments.  We will also show how the notion of process is
essential in multiagent domains, and contrast this with most
approaches in AI that are based solely on the allowable behaviors of
agents.  We will then consider how we might go about specifying the
properties of events and processes, and whether or not such
specifications require nonmonotonicity or circumscription.  Finally,
we will examine various views of the frame problem and see to what
extent some of the major difficulties can be overcome.

------------------------------

Date: Fri 28 Mar 86 11:38-EST
From: "Lisa F. Melcher" <LISA@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Seminar - Inexact Reasoning using Graphs (MIT)


                          Wednesday, April 16, 1986
                          3:45 p.m.....Refreshments
                            4:00 p.m.....Lecture
                                 NE43 - 512A


                                 JUDEA PEARL

                         Computer Science Department
                                    UCLA


                      "Inexact Reasoning Using Graphs"

Probability theory is shunned by most researchers in Artifical Intelligence.
New calculi, claimed to better represent human reasoning under uncertainty,
are being invented and reinvented at an ever-increasing rate.  A major reason
for the emergence of this curious episode has been the objective of making
reasoning systems TRANSPARENT i.e., capable of producing PSYCHOLOGICALLY
MEANINGFUL explanations for the intermediate steps used in deriving the
conclusions.

While traditional probability theory, admittedly, has erected cultural
barriers against meeting this requirement, we shall show that these barriers
are superficial, and can be eliminated with the use of DEPENDENCY GRAPHS.
The nodes in these graphs represent propositions (or variables), and the arcs
represent causal dependencies among conceptually-related propositions.  We
further argue that the basic steps invoked while people query and update
their knowledge correspond to mental tracings of preestablished links in such
graphs, and it is the degree to which an explanation mirrors these tracings
that determines whether it is considered "psychologically meaningful".

The first part of the talk will examine what properties of probabilistic
models can be captured by graphical representations, and will compare the
properties of two such representations:  Markov Networks and Bayes Networks.

The second part will introduce a calculus for performing inferences in Bayes
Networks.  The impact of each new evidence is viewed as a perturbation that
propagates through the network via local communication among neighboring
concepts.  We show that such autonomous propagation mechanism leads to
flexible control strategies and sound explanations, that it supports both
predictive and diagnostic inferences, that it is guaranteed to converge in
time proportional to the network's diameter, and that every proposition is
eventually accorded a measure of belief consistent with the axioms of
probability theory.

In conclusion, we will show that the current trend of abandoning probability
theory is grossly premature--taking graph propagation as the basis for
probabilistic reasoning satisfies most computational requirements for
managing uncertainties in reasoning systems and, simultaneously, it exhibits
epistemological features unavailable in any competing formalism.


              Sponsored by TOC, Laboratory for Computer Science
                             Ronald Rivest, Host

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 86 15:20:02 est
From: decvax!mulga!aragorn.oz!brian@decwrl.DEC.COM (Brian J. Garner)
Subject: Conference - 1st Australian Applied AI Congress

Call for Papers:

   1
  11  st
 111  AUSTRALIAN
  11  ARTIFICIAL
  11  INTELLIGENCE
  11  CONGRESS
  11
 1111  Melbourne, November 18-20, 1986


                      CALL FOR PAPERS

Abstract of papers to be selected for presentation to the 1st Australian
Artificial Intelligence Congress are now invited. The three-part program
comprises:

i)   AI in Education

     - Intelligent tutors
     - Computer-managed learning
     - Course developers environment
     - Learning models
     - Course authoring software

ii)  Expert System Applications

     - Deductive databases
     - Conceptual schema
     - Expert system shells (applications and limitations)
     - Interactive knowledge base systems
     - Knowledge engineering environments
     - Automated knowledge acquisition

iii) Office Knowledge Bases

     - Document classification and retrieval
     - Publishing systems
     - Knowledge source systems
     - Decision support systems
     - Office information systems


Tutorial presenters are also sought. Specialists are required
in the areas of:

     - Common loops
     - Natural language processing
     - Inference engines
     - Building knowledge databases
     - Search strategies
     - Heuristics for AI solving

Format:

ACSnet address: brian!aragorn.oz
CSNET address:  brian@aragorn.oz
UUCP address:   seismo!munnari!aragorn.oz!brian
                decvax!mulga!aragorn.oz!brian
ARPA address:   munnari!aragorn.oz!brian@seismo.arpa
                decvax!mulga!aragorn.oz!brian@Berkeley

PC diskette to Division of Computing and Mathematics, Deakin University,
Victoria 3217, Australia. Attn. Dr. Brian Garner.

DEADLINES: All submissions by May 16, 1986. Notification by June 30.

Inquiries: Stephen Moore, Director, 1AAIC86, tel: (02)439-5133.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 86 21:06:04 GMT
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!mcvax!prlb2!lln-cs!hb@ucbvax.berk
      eley.edu  (Hubert Broze)
Subject: Conference - Knowledge Representation Tools for Expert
         Systems

=================================================================

Conference announcement :

 "KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION TOOLS FOR EXPERT SYSTEMS"

Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium), April 21st, 1986.
Place des Sciences, Auditorium A01

Organized jointly by :
  L'Unite d'Informatique de l'Universite Catholique de Louvain
  The Belgian Association for Artificial Intelligence (BAAI)
  The ACM Student Chapter of Louvain-la-Neuve.


                   PROGRAM :


 9 H 30 Participants welcome & Opening of the industrial exhibition
 10 H 00 - 11 H 00 F. ARLABOSSE (Framentec, Paris) :
                      "The representation of Knowledge : the industrial phase"
 11 H 15 - 12 H 15 J. FERBER (LRI-Univ. Paris-Sud)
                       "Reflections in object-oriented languages"
 12 H 15 - 14 H 30  lunch
 14 H 30 - 15 H 30  P.Y.  GLOESS (CNRS & Graphael) :
                      "OBLOGIS : une implantation orientee objet de la logique
                      de Prolog et liaison de cette logique avec des objets"
 15 H 45 - 16 H 45 R. VENKEN (Bim)
                       "BIM-Prolog : A new implementation of Prolog"
 16 H 45 - 18 H 00 Cocktail (kindly offered by intersem-Sligos)

             ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←

  During the whole day, an industrial exhibition will be held with the
  participation of Apollo Computer, BIM (Sun), CPP (KES), Ferranti (ART),
  IBM, Rank Xerox, Symbolics, Tektronix, Texas Instrument etc.


  Participation to the meeting is FREE OF CHARGE

  Additional Information may be obtained from :

   E. Gregoire, Unite Info, Place Ste Barbe, 2, B1348 Louvain-la-Neuve,
                Belgium.
                Tel : + 32 10 43 24 15
                UUCP : {prlb2,vmucnam}!lln-cs!eg

------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 86 15:54:10 GMT
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!burdvax!ted@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ted Hermann)
Subject: Conference - AI Impacts Workshop

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IMPACTS

            WORKSHOP

          PRESENTED BY

  AMERICAN COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


          June 4-6, 1986


        FAA Technical Center
   Atlantic City Airpot. New Jersey


    American Computer Technologies, Inc.
      237 Lancaster Avenue, Suite 255
          Devon, PA 19333


For Information call Carol Ward, A.C.T., Inc. (215) 687-4148 or write to above
address.


WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES:

describe the business opportunities of Artificial Intelligence technologies

examine the strengths and limitations of these technologies

identify current AI products and services on the market and their potential
applications

analyze companies at the fore-front of the AI market and those expected to
enter soon

analyze current and emerging international markets for AI technology

clarify the business growth opportunities and threats associated with AI
technology

provide an understanding of the potential impact Artificial Intelligence
will have on business

identify promising new frontiers in AI research with applications to the
commercial and military sectors

analyze software and hardware needs for emerging AI markets and assess the
impacts on U.S. business



WORKSHOP TOPICS:


I. Introduction

Opening Remarks
Creating Computers that Think
Emerging International AI Markets

II. Assessment of AI Opportunities

Expert Systems
Movement in Space
Vision
Natural Language Comprehension
Learning

III. Analyses of AI Products and Services

Current/Future Software Packages
Stand-Alone AI Hardware
AI in Personal Computers
Embedded AI Systems
Knowledge Expert Services

IV. Assessment of Competitive Issues

Strategic Computing/Defense Initiatives
New Japanese MITI-ICOT Perspectives
Western European Consortia
Emerging Eastern Bloc Cooperation
Established AI Firms
Emerging AI Ventures
Joint Ventures and R&D Partnerships
Mergers and Acquisitions

IV. Strategic Risks and Constraints

Financial Risks
Social/Legal Risks
Technological Constraints
Market Constraints

VI. Analyses of End-User Applications

Direct Military Applications
Software Engineering Applications
Non-Military Government Applications
Commercial Applications

VII. Analyses of Global Trends

Fifth-Generation Machine Architectures
Emerging Fourth-Generation Languages
Other Major Technological Thrusts
Near-Real Time Systems
Economic impact of International AI Markets
Growth of AI products and services

WORKSHOP LEADERS

T. S. Hermann, Ph.D.,  President of American Computer Technologies,
Inc., has served as the Manager, Plans and Programs at Burroughs' Paoli
Research Center; Director of R&D at Analytics, Inc.; Sr. VP Technology of Sun
Company; President of Franklin Research Center; and President of Mellon
Institute, Carnegie-Mellon University.

Ronald L. Krutz, Ph.D., Director, Computer Engineering Center, Carnegie
Mellon University.

Lewis J. Petrovic, Ph.D., President, Resource Engineering, Inc.

B.K. Wesley Copeland, MBA, President, International Science &
Technology

G. Richard Patton, Ph.D., Ex.VP, Resource Assessment, Inc., and Faculty
Member, Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh


WHO SHOULD ATTEND?

The ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IMPACTS workshop has been established primarily
to address the needs of business persons who are interested in or are
responsible for Governmental Program planning, marketing and manufacturing.

WHAT ARE THE MAJOR ISSUES?

This workshop will assess major AI product opportunities, explore fundamental
trends and market concepts of Artificial Intelligence and will go beyond
conventional strategic assertions within an International business context.

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?

THE WORKSHOP will answer the hard business questions of Artificial
Intelligence.  Participants will learn of the emerging AI business growth
opportunities; become aware of the key players and their product strategies;
analyze the growing international markets and potential competitors; acquire
forecasts of important technological impacts and thrusts; and will scutinize
the constraints and risks of the AI products.

For Information call Carol Ward, A.C.T., Inc. (215) 687-4148 or write to above
address.

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂02-Apr-86  0625	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #66
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 2 Apr 86  06:25:29 PST
Date: Sun 30 Mar 1986 22:56-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #66
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Monday, 31 Mar 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 66

Today's Topics:
  Queries - Eliza & BKG & Public Domain Software &
    Lisp Syntax & Basic ATN & Economics of Expert Systems,
  Discussion - IQ Tests for Computers & Computer Dialog

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu 27 Mar 86 13:26:15-CST
From: AI.HASSAN@MCC.ARPA
Subject: Eliza

Where could I run Eliza (Weizenbaum's program) or get a copy of the
source code? Send reply to hassan@mcc.arpa---Thanks.
H.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 86 10:35:57 cst
From: Dan Nichols <dnichols%tilde%ti-csl.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: BKG request


I am interested in obtaining a copy of Hans Berliner's
famous BKG program. Does anyone know of an implementation
in LISP or for UNIX?
I would also love to have a copy of the source for studying.

Can anyone help or can anyone tell me if Mr. Berliner is
on the net and how to reach him?

Please respond to me rather than flooding this list.


 *USNail*              *electronic*
Dan Nichols            USENET: {ctvax,im4u,texsun,rice}!ti-csl!dnichols
POB 226015 M/S 238     ARPA:  Dnichols%TI-CSL@CSNet-Relay
Texas Instruments Inc. CSNET: Dnichols@Ti-CSL
Dallas, Texas          VOICE: (214) 995-6090
75266                  COMPUSERVE: 72067,1465

He o shite shiri-tsubome!

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 86  9:45:20 EST
From: John Shaver  STEEP-TMAC 879-7602 <jshaver@apg-3>
Subject: Public Domain Software

I recently found a public doman PROLOG at Simtel20 pd:<pc-
blue.vol157>.  Are the other such programs which could be used by
person s with access to and IBM PC or similar computers.

                        John

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 86 10:29:00 EST
From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
Reply-to: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
Subject: Lisp syntax for inference engines


OK, I have a dumb question for you Lisp wizards.  In any
fact-rule inferencing system, there must be a distinction
between constants and variables. In Prolog and OPS5 these are
clearly distinguished by syntax, a la:

         |  constant    variable

CProlog  |  red         Color       (capital letter on variable)
OPS5     |  red         <color>     (angle brackets on variable)

The Lisp analogs would appear to be:

Lisp     |  'red        color       (quote on constant)

Note, for instance that you can bind "color" to "'red", or
to another variable, like "hair-color", or leave it unbound,
just like a good ole variable in Prolog and OPS5.  Similarly,
'red has an unchanging, self-evident value, just like a
well-behaved constant.

But in the published algorithms, like in "Lisp" by Winston or
"AI Programming" by Charniak, it seems that some spelling
convention for symbols is dreamed up to distinguish the two, eg,
red (constant) and ?color (variable), and the quoted form is not
used at all.  Why not use the mechanism provided directly by the
language?  Is this just a matter of taste, that people like to
decorate the variable and not the constant?  Or is there some
deep-seated semantic/efficiency-type reason lurking here?

John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>
National Bureau of Standards

------------------------------

Date: Sun 30 Mar 86 16:28:53-EST
From: John C. Akbari <AKBARI@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject: basic atn

are there new, readable introductions to the theory (and implementation!) of
atns?  examples of code would be most helpful.  anyone researching (or just
hacking) with object-oriented approaches to parsing, PLEASE inform me of
your work (e.g., FLAVORS, LOOPS, NoteCards, etc.).  will summarize for
ai bb.

thanks.

john akbari
akbari@cs.columbia.edu

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 86 10:50:41 est
From: munnari!psych.uq.oz!ross@seismo.CSS.GOV (Ross Gayler)
Subject: economics of expert systems - assistance please

I am currently working on a project which, amongst other things, requires me
to find out something about the economics of expert systems. The technology
of expert systems seems to be a classical case of a solution searching for
appropriate problems. I am quite happy to believe that expert systems can
be much more cost-effective than conventional systems for certain classes of
problems, but what are the characteristics of these problems?

Specifically, I would like to know how the implementation costs of expert
systems vary as a function of attributes of the problem (complexity, size,
uncertainty etc.), attributes of the implementors (experience with tools and
domain etc.) and the attributes of the tools (representations, inference
methods, strategies etc.). I would also like to know how the system costs
are distributed across the system life cycle and how all this information
compares with conventional computer systems.

If this was a movie it would be "Yourdon and de Marco do expert systems".

I can't recall having seen any serious discussion of this area. The only
statements have been along the lines of "We coded 10 rules per week" and
unsubstantiated claims for ease of maintenance. I don't actually expect
strong empirical work at this stage but some good conceptual analyses would
be nice. Any references, pointers or opinions would be gratefully accepted.

Ross Gayler                     | ACSnet:       ross@psych.uq.oz
Division of Research & Planning | ARPA:         ross%psych.uq.oz@seismo.css.gov
Queensland Department of Health | CSNET:        ross@psych.uq.oz
GPO Box 48                      | JANET:        psych.uq.oz!ross@ukc
Brisbane        4001            | UUCP:      ..!seismo!munnari!psych.uq.oz!ross
AUSTRALIA                       | Phone:        +61 7 227 7060

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 86 09:57:28 cst
From: preece%ccvaxa@gswd-vms (Scott E. Preece)
Subject: More on IQ tests for Computers.

        Two gripes with this. Who are the carbon/tissue *computers* he is
        talking about?  Secondly, computers will  never be "intelligent";
        however software might *appear* intelligent in certain respects.
        Nuff said.
        Gordon Joly

Do we really want this list to be a battleground for unsubstantiated
personal opinions on the potential for machine intelligence?

scott preece
gould/csd - urbana
uucp:   ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
arpa:   preece@gswd-vms

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 86 03:14:07 GMT
From: pur-ee!pucc-j!pucc-h!ahh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Davis)
Subject: Computer Dialogue

I have a question that I have been pondering over for some time.
I have asked a few people about it and have received a few
different answers. The question is:
  Can a Computer feel, and tell you it's feelings?

I say that if the computer is actually having a bad day (ie. disk
troubles and the like ) that somewhere in the operating system
there should exist some functions to let the user know how it
feels in some friendly way.
I consider this to be a true feeling of the computer.
However many of my associates tell me that this would
be something that is built into the system of an un-living thing,
And that this is only simulated.

I would like to hear your opinions on this subject.

               Mark Davis

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 86 13:59:30 GMT
From: allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!talcott!panda!teddy!mjn@ucbvax.
      berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: re: Computer Dialogue #1


> Maybe not, but this only applies to present-day computers.  "Some people
> realize that brain cells don't feel emotions any more than toasters do"...
> doesn't mean that a combination of many brain cells cannot, and the same
> could apply to future computers with many times the capability of today's
> computers.

"Some people realize that brain cells don't feel emotions any more than
toasters do"... doesn't mean that a combination of many toasters cannot, and
the same could apply to future toasters with many times the capability of
today's toasters.

                Mark J. Norton
                {decvax,linus,wjh12,mit-eddie,cbosgd,masscomp}!genrad!panda!mjn
                mjn@sunspot

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 86 02:52:36 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hounx!kort@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (B.KORT)
Subject: Re: Computer Dialogue

Mark Davis asks if computers have anything akin to human feelings.

One of the most salient of human feelings is pain, which is the
name of the brain state triggered by neural impulses signalling
damage or distress to body tissue.

Consider one of the most complex computers in operation today--a
No. 5 ESS (Electronic Switching System) in the North American
Telephone Network.  It has many sensors throughout its equipment
bays which detect loss of functionality.  These sensors raise
alarms in the central processor which are functionally equivalent
to the human sensation of pain.  The central processor responds
by taking steps to ameliorate the problem.  It calls the "doctor"
(craftsperson) for assistance and otherwise takes prudent steps
to protect itself from consequential harm.

On another level of analogy, there is an interesting comparison
between diagnostic messages from a computer and human emotional
responses when faced with a situation ("input") for which
the computer or person is unprepared.  (See my Computer Dialogues
#1 and #2 for a somewhat whimsical portrayal of this comparison.)

Leaving aside the semantic issues, one notes a curious mapping
between machine states/brain states and the corresponding
input/output patterns.  It seems to me that human feelings
correspond *mutatis mutandis* to functionally equivalent
phenomena within computers and other complex systems.

--Barry Kort  ...ihnp4!hounx!kort

------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 86 15:03:20 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hounx!kort@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (B.KORT)
Subject: Re: Computer Dialogue #1

Dear Charles and Peter,

Please understand that I wrote Computer Dialogues #1 and #2 as "flights
of fancy" to imagine some of the problems that might arise when
self-programming computers begin to interact with each other.  I gave
the computers some anthropomorphic emotions, thinly disguised as
diagnostic messages.  My goal was to bridge the gulf between those who
love machines and those who dread them.  [...]

For those who are interested in the deeper philosophical issues of the
soul, may I recommend the two short stories by Terrell Miedener in
The Mind's I.  One is the touching story of a chmimpanzee with an
enquiring mind entitled The Soul of Martha, a Beast.  The other is
about a mechanical mouse with a survival instinct entitled The Soul
of the Mark III Beast.

Regards,

Barry

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂08-Apr-86  0207	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #67
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 8 Apr 86  02:07:29 PST
Date: Mon 31 Mar 1986 08:57-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #67
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Monday, 31 Mar 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 67

Today's Topics:
  Applications - Machine Translation & Automated Documentation,
  Book - Machine Learning: A Guide To Current Research,
  Journals - Aviation Week Technical Survey &
    Dr. Dobbs Journal AI Issue & AI in Engineering,
  Theory - P = NP ?,
  Linguistics - Ambiguity,
  AI Tools - FORTRAN

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 86 17:37 EST
From: Steve Dourson - Delco <dourson%gmr.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Machine Translation of Documents

I am quoting the following article from the Dayton SIGART newsletter
dated March 13, 1986:

COMMERCIAL MACHINE TRANSLATION
Business Week (# 2912, 9/16/85, pp. 90D ff.) reports in an article by
Joyce Heard with Leslie Helm that several companies are active in
developing machines to produce commercial translations of documents.
This article describes translation systems that are currently
available for translating English, German, French, Spanish, Italian
and Japanese.  Speeds of up to 100,000 words per hour are claimed, as
are accuracies of up to 90% and prices as low as $3000.  (Not all the
same system of course).  Customers are apparently willing to accept
rough translations as long as they can get them quickly; translators,
however, are not happy just polishing machine translations.  Most of
the companies offering multilingual services are converting text to a
"neutral" language, then into the target language -- this greatly
reduces the cost of additional source or target languages.
-----

I haven't seen the original article.  It may be worth investigating if
any of these machines could deliver a usable rough translation.
Perhaps the collection of papers could be machine-translated and
surveyed. Selected papers would be professionally translated.

Stephen Dourson
dourson%gmr.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA (arpa)
dourson@gmr                        (csnet)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 86 14:27:00 pst
From: George Cross <cross%wsu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Re: towards better documentation

>>I am interested in creating an expert system to serve as
>>on-line documentation.

You probably want to look at Nathaniel Borenstein's dissertation
     The Design and Evaluation of On-Line Help Systems
CMU, 1985 Available as Technical Report CMU-CS-85-151

In addition to a description of Borenstein's system, this has a large
bibliography and discussion of existing systems.

 ---- George

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 George R. Cross                cross@wsu.CSNET
 Computer Science Department    cross%wsu@csnet-relay.ARPA
 Washington State University    faccross@wsuvm1.BITNET
 Pullman, WA      99164-1210    Phone: 509-335-6319 or 509-335-6636

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 86 09:12 EST
From: WAnderson.wbst@Xerox.COM
Subject: towards better documentation

An excellent recent article entitled "Interactive Documentation" by P.J.
Brown (Computing Lab, The University, Canterbury, Kent) appears in the
March 1986 issue of Software -- Practice and Experience.  The full
reference is:

Brown, P.J., Interactive Documentation, Software -- Practice and
Experience, Vol 16(3), March 1986, pp. 291-299.

He talks to many issues relating to display of documentation, and
describes a tool that "allows readers of computer-based documents to
peruse these documents at any desired level of detail" (from the
Abstract).  Especially interesting is his distinction between
"replace-buttons" and "glossary-buttons."

Bill Anderson

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 86 10:36:08 est
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher@ht.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: towards better documentation

   Date: 18 Mar 86 14:17:00 GMT
   From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!graham@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
   Subject: towards better documentation

   I am interested in creating an expert system to serve as on-line
   documentation.  The intent is to abrogate the above law and
   corollaries.  Does anyone know of such a system or any effort(s) to
   produce one?  [...]

Frankly, it sounds like a black hole to me.  Building an expert system
to do something that people don't know how to do very well is
generally a bad idea.  The ubiquity of crummy documentation is prima
facie evidence that creating *good* documentation isn't yet a widely
understood art.

Nevertheless I'll toss some ideas out, first trying to figure out what
the functionality of this system is supposed to be.

Maybe you're talking about automatically generating documentation from
existing source code.  You might start with Rich & Waters' stuff on
the programmers apprentice, also Bob Balzer's stuff at USC-ISI.  See
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, November 1985, as one place
to start looking for lots of other related references.  The problem
here is extracting the users-eye-view from an implementation.  I would
think it would be easier to extract it from the original specification
(assuming it exists).

Another thing you might mean is building a ``user's assistant'' for a
complicated program.  Along these lines I can suggest Mike
Genesereth's work (circa 1977, MIT) on the ``MACSYMA advisor,'' a
design with some interesting ideas.  Also I seem to recall that people
have done expert systems for advising users on how to use a
complicated set of models embedded in a packages of dozens of FORTRAN
subroutines.  E.g. statistical, econometric, ecological models.  I
believe there was a paper in ECAI-84 on one of these, maybe Bundy was
an author (big help, eh?)?  Also I believe there is an ongoing project
at Berkeley on a user's assistant for Unix.  The idea is to be able to
ask it things like like ``how do I get these 90 files copied from one
machine to another'' and it makes a plan and guides you through the
steps, modifying the plan as it goes to deal with contingencies (e.g.
the machine you want to copy to turns out to have no network
connection so you have to make a tape).  (I wonder what the program
says if you ask it ``how can I get back the files I accidentally
deleted?'' :-) To be useful the system needs to be able to generate
plans of action from its own knowledge of the program.  Makes a good
forcing function on its knowledge.

Finally, maybe you just mean building an expert system that knows a
lot about a particular program, and presents hunks of canned text on
various topics.  However, I don't see what such a thing could possibly
boil down to anything other than an index.  Somebody still has to
figure out what to put in the index.  To make it ``smart'' you need to
think about how to build that index automatically, or have it defined
implicitly by having the program search the hunks of canned text for
strings that match things the user is asking about.  But then you have
the natural language problem on your hands again due to synonyms, verb
vs noun forms, etc.  Ick.  And the problem with this last approach of
course is that it doesn't abrogate Graham's Law: the canned text is,
after all, canned.  The system is not an expert on the program, it's
an expert on the manual!  The only way to abrogate the law is to have
the system look at the source code of the program... and then you're
back in the black hole again.

Well, good luck.  I hope these ramblings may lead to something helpful
(and provoke errata from more knowledgeable readers).

        -w

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 86 14:34:36 EST
From: GABINELLI@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
Subject: Machine Learning: A Guide To Current Research

         [Forwarded from the Rutgers bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

MACHINE LEARNING: A Guide To Current Research (a collection of 77
papers--most of which were contributed by participants at the last ML
Workshop held in June, 1985) is being offered by the publisher,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, at a special pre-publication rate of
$27.95 (shipping included).  This is a discount of 30% off the regular
price.  [...]

Jo Ann Gabinelli

------------------------------

Date: Wed 26 Mar 86 09:08:28-PST
From: Oscar Firschein <FIRSCHEIN@SRI-IU.ARPA>
Subject: Aviation Week Technical Survey


AILIST readers might be interested in the following:

Aviation Week and Space Technology, Feb. 17, 1986 has a technical
survey of artificial intelligence, mostly applied to military
applications.  Included are the DARPA-supported programs in Pilot's
Associate and the Autonomous Land Vehicle (ALV) and the VLSI lisp
machine being built by Texas Instruments.

Company profiles include McDonnell Aircraft's work in the Pilot's
Associate and avionics maintenance expert system; Boeing's AI Center;
MITRE's work in natural language understanding; Grumman's decision
support systems; Hughes AI center; and Westinghouse avionics
troubleshooting expert system.

------------------------------

Date: Fri 28 Mar 86 13:15:10-CST
From: Werner Uhrig  <CMP.WERNER@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: pointer: Dr. Dobbs Journal (April 86)  The Annual AI Issue

        TABLE OF CONTENTS

Programming in LISP and PROLOG

24      AI: BRIE - The Boca Raton Inference Engine
                by Robert Jay Brown III
        An exploration of artificial intelligence techniques, using LISP,
        PROLOG, and Expert-2.

An Expert at Life

42      AI: A Cellular Automation in Expert-2
                by Jack Park
        Jack visited our pages two years ago with an expert system for
        predicting the weather.  This little game could teach even more
        about AI tools.

46      AI: Modeling a System in PROLOG
                by Sheldon D Softky
        PROGLOG may be the language of choice for some very practical tasks,
        says the author.

------------------------------

Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: Journal - AI in Engineering


The International Journal for Artificial Intelligence in Engineering is
a new quarterly available from Computational Mechanics Publications,
subscription only, price $130.  Please apply to Computational Mechanics Inc.,
Suite 6200, 400 West Cummings Park, Woburn, MA 01801, USA.  (USA, Canada
and Mexico).  Ashurst Lodge, Ashurst, Southampton SO4 2AA, England
for others.

------------------------------

Date: 29 March 1986 2129-EST
From: Andreas Nowatzyk@A.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: P=NP Is this for real?

           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


Article 355 of net.research:
From: ghgonnet@watdaisy

Title:   P = NP by E.R. Swart, Department of Computing and Information
Science, University of Guelph, Research Report CIS86-02, February 1986.

Abstract:
A mathematical progamming formulation of the Hamilton circuit problem
involving zero/one restrictions and triply subscripted variables is
presented and by relaxing the zero/one restrictions and adding additional
linear constraints together with additional variables, with up to as
many as 8 subscripts, this formulation is converted into a linear
programming formulation.  In the light of the results of Kachiyan
and Karmakar concerning the existence of polynomial time algorithms
for linear programming this establishes the fact that the Hamilton
circuit problem can be solved in polynomial time.  Since the Hamilton
circuit problem belongs to the set of NP-complete problems it follows
that P = NP.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 86 12:01:34 pst
From: Allen VanGelder <avg@diablo>
Subject: P=NP(?) still open

           [Forwarded from the SRI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

[...]
> From: lawler@ernie.berkeley.edu (Eugene Lawler)
> Subject: Swart's paper
> Not surprisingly, it seems to be fatally flawed. Bob Solovay started
> reading it carefully, found gaps in proofs, wrote Swart about them.
> The P=NP question is still with us, I believe.   --Gene Lawler

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 86 14:28:58 EST
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@bbncch.ARPA>
Subject: ambiguity

Then there is this from the ←Electric←Kool-Aid←Acid←Test . . .
on a tree at the foot of the driveway from the commune to the
main road was this sign:

        No Left Turn Unstoned

A triple (at least) pun in four words!

        Bruce

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 86 23:46:05 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: AI languages

    From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk

    Some AI packages  soon could have interfaces to numerical code,
    particularly those in process control; expert systems will make
    decisions about a fault, then a simulation, written in FORTRAN,
    will be run to see if the fix will work.

  Why should the numerical routines be written in FORTRAN rather than
Lisp?  Is this just for dusty decks, or is it proposed that new
FORTRAN code be written for this?
                                                                ...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 86 13:24:52 GMT
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Re: AI Languages.

>   Why should the numerical routines be written in FORTRAN rather than
> Lisp?  Is this just for dusty decks, or is it proposed that new
> FORTRAN code be written for this? /Keith Lynch <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>

I agree that LISP code can be faster than FORTRAN. Certainly MACLISP
produces fast numerical code. But most of the software effort for
numerical simulations, goes into FORTRAN, be it 66, 77 or 8X!
So they ain't just those dusty decks of cards.

Gordon Joly
ARPA: gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂08-Apr-86  0410	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #68
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 8 Apr 86  04:10:40 PST
Date: Tue  8 Apr 1986 00:07-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #68
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Tuesday, 8 Apr 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 68

Today's Topics:
  Seminars - Tek Tools and Technology (Ames) &
    Machine Learning, Clustering and Polymorphy (Rutgers) &
    Feedback During Skill Acquisition (CMU) &
    Growing Min-Max Game Trees (MIT) &
    State, Models, and Qualitative Reasoning (MIT) &
    Functional Computations in Logic Programs (UPenn)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 86 08:32:09 pst
From: eugene@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Seminar - Tek Tools and Technology (Ames)

From:   MER::ANDREWS


              National Aeronautics and Space Administration
                         Ames Research Center


                            AMES AI FORUM
                        SEMINAR ANNOUNCEMENT


                 Tektronix AI Tools and Technology

                 Tektronix Representatives:
                       Steve Levine - AI Specialist
                       Brad Martinson - Systems Analyst
                       Tamarah Day - Sales Engineer


             Tuesday, April 8, 1986       10:30 - 11:30 am
           B 239  rm B39 (Life Sciences Basement Auditorium)
                      NASA Ames Research Center



Agenda:

10:30 - 11:00     Slide presentation - AI history overview
                  Question & answer period

11:00 - 11:30 or  Product demonstrations on the Tektronix 4404 and 4406
          12:00   Artificial Intelligence Workstations.  Demonstrations
                  will include a Preliminary Expert Ground Analysis
                  Scheduler developed by Harris Corporation for Kennedy
                  Space Center to assist in the scheduling of ground
                  processing activities.  Also presented will be an
                  electronic circuit board diagnostic expert system and
                  applications of software prototyping and user
                  interfacing.



           point of contact:  Alison Andrews  (415)694-6741
                              mer.andrews@ames-vmsb.ARPA



N.B.  For those of you who cannot make it to this Ames AI Forum, Tektronix
      is having a similar presentation and demo on April 3, with the
      following agenda:
            8:30-9:00   Coffee and doughnuts
            9:00-10:30  Presentations (AI Overview, AI at TEK Labs, Managing
                         the Knowledge Engineering Process)
            10:30-11:15 Demonstrations
            11:15-11:30 Summary
            11:30-12:00 Questions and Answers
            12:30-4:00  Afternoon Schedule

      R.S.V.P. Mary Clement (408)496-0800

      Tektronix is located at 3003 Bunker Hill Lane (just off Great
      America Parkway, near cross street Betsy Ross), Santa Clara.
      Attendees of the April 3 demo will not be shown the Kennedy Space
      Center expert system, so do try to make it to the Ames AI Forum,
      despite the lack of doughnuts!

------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 86 16:56:24 EST
From: PRASAD@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
Subject: Seminar - Machine Learning, Clustering and Polymorphy (Rutgers)

                    MACHINE LEARNING COLLOQUIUM


             Machine Learning, Clustering and Polymorphy

                       Stephen Jose Hanson
                              and
                         Malcolm Bauer

                  Bell Communications Research
                              and
          Princeton University Cognitive Science Laboratory

                        April 8, Tuesday
                        #423, Hill Center

I will describe a conceptual clustering program (WITT) that
attempts to model human categorization. Experiments will
also be described in which the output of WITT and other
Conceptual clustering programs will be compared to the
performance of human subjects using the same stimuli.
Properties of categories to which human subjects are
sensitive includes best or prototypical members, relative
contrasts between putative categories, and polymorphy
(neither necessary or sufficient features). Polymorphy  (m
out of N, m < N) represents a weakening of conjunction
predicates which still seem to be of an order that is
learnable to humans.  Wittengentein refers to polymorphy as
a basis for a category theory in which category "criteria"
determine the nature of the membership rule.

     This approach represents an alternative to usual
Artificial Intelligence approaches to generalization,
conceptual clustering and semantic analysis which tend to
focus on common feature rules, impoverished category
structure, and simple search and match schemes.  WITT uses
feature inter-correlations, category structure (prototypes,
basic levels, etc..) and a conservative search strategy in
order to construct a set of categories given objects defined
on a multi-valued feature list.  Information retrieval was
used for a test domain for WITT in order to discover
reasonable categories from the psychological abstracts,
which were subsequently compared to psychologists from
Princeton psychology department sorting the same abstracts.
Another test domain involved constructing meta-level
categories for nations of the world, where semantic features
were extracted from a machine readable version of the 1985
World Almanac.  WITT discovered concepts like "third world
countries" and "european countries" and "technologically
advanced countries".

** If you wish to host the speakers or meet with them, please send
   a message to PRASAD@RUTGERS.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 4 April 1986 1433-EST
From: Cathy Hill@A.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Seminar - Feedback During Skill Acquisition (CMU)

                Impact of Feedback Content during Initial
                              Skill Acquisition

                                Jean McKendree

                     Wednesday, April 9   12:00-1:30 pm

                            ****** BH 340A ******

   Most theories of learning and skill acquisition acknowledge the
importance of feedback, particularly after errors.  However, none of
them are explicit about the content of this information.  I will
present hypotheses about the efficacy of different sorts of feedback
content and relate them briefly to current information processing
theories.  I will then present the results from experiments
which vary information content after errors and which begin to look at
differences in experience level.  The proposed experiment will use
verbal protocols as well as quantitative data to better
understand the usefulness of different sorts of information for
error correction.  A simulation model will attempt to compare the
impact of these different types of information assuming an identical
starting point.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1986  18:12 EST
From: JHC%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Seminar - Growing Min-Max Game Trees (MIT)

           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


Thursday , April 10  4:00pm  Room: NE43 8th floor Playroom

                    The Artificial Intelligence Lab
                        Revolving Seminar Series


            A New Procedure for Growing Min-Max Game Trees


                          David  McAllester
                             AI Lab, MIT


In games such as chess decisions must be based on incomplete search
trees.  A new tree-growth procedure is presented which is based on
"conspiracy numbers" as a formal measure of the accuracy of the root
minimax value of an incomplete tree.  Trees can be grown with the goal
of maximizing the accuracy of the root value.  Trees grown in this way
are often deeper and narrower than alpha-beta optimal trees with the
same number of nodes.  On the other hand, if all nodes have the same
static value then the new procedure reduces to d-ply search with
alpha-beta pruning.  Unlike B* search, non-uniform growth is achieved
without any modification of the static board evaluator.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1986  17:21 EST
From: JHC%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Seminar - State, Models, and Qualitative Reasoning (MIT)

           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


                    The Artificial Intelligence Lab
                        Revolving Seminar Series

               State, Models, and Qualitative Reasoning

                           Jerry  Roylance

                             AI Lab, MIT


Qualitative reasoning, modeling, and representations of state are
important issues in AI.  Machines need interesting models of their
task and methods that enable them to reason with those models.
Without models machines can offer little help in relieving the
programmer's or system builder's workload.

A conventional program is a literal description of what to do.  By
investing the program with a model of what it is doing and some methods,
we can use code that is both simpler and more believable.  Numerical
subroutines, for example, have several unifying ideas about search,
approximation, and transformation.  Using these ideas directly (rather
than the results of the ideas) eliminates a lot of ugly code.

While qualitative reasoners gain their power in the simplicity of their
algebra, they pay a price in resolving the ambiguity that that
simplicity produces.  We look at the simplifications that qualitative
reasoners do in light of the mathematical properties of the original
equations, the choice of distinguished values, and traditional
simulation methods.

Modeling a world is a difficult problem.  State is a part of modeling
that is not described very well; the best descriptions that we have are
Moore machine descriptions that the current state and the inputs give us
the next state.  Better, goal-oriented, descriptions that do more than
just simulation are needed.



Thursday, April 3  4:00pm  Room: NE43 8th floor Playroom

Refreshments at 3:30pm

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 86 11:09 EST
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - Functional Computations in Logic Programs (UPenn)

Forwarded From: Glenda Kent <Glenda@UPenn> on Mon 31 Mar 1986 at 10:42


                   FUNCTIONAL COMPUTATIONS IN LOGIC PROGRAMS


                               Saumya K. Debray
                              SUNY at Stony Brook

                            Tuesday, April 1, 1986
                            Room 216 - Moore School
                               3:00 - 4:30 p.m.


While  the ability to simulate nondeterminism and return multiple outputs for a
single input  is  a  powerful  and  attractive  feature  of  logic  programming
languages,  it is expensive in both time and space.  This overhead is especialy
undesirable because programs are very often functional, i.e. do not return more
than  one  output  for any given input, and so do not use this feature of these
languages.  This talk describes how programs  may  be  analyzed  statically  to
determine which literals and predicates are functional, and how the program may
then be optimized using  this  information.    Our  notion  of  "functionality"
subsumes  the  notion  of  "determinacy"  that  has  been considered by various
researchers.  The algorithm we describe is less reliant  on  features  such  as
cut,  and  thus  extends  more  easily  to parallel evaluation strategies, than
others that have been proposed.

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂08-Apr-86  0713	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #69
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 8 Apr 86  07:13:22 PST
Date: Tue  8 Apr 1986 00:12-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #69
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Tuesday, 8 Apr 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 69

Today's Topics:
  Seminars - Metaplanning: Controlling Planning in a Complex Domain (CMU) &
    Rule-Based Systems and Heuristic Classification (SU) &
    The MACE System (USC) &
    Expert Systems for System Management (MIT) &
    Temporal Theorem Proving (SRI) &
    Network Propagation for Reasoning about Uncertainty (CMU) &
    Optical Artifical Intelligence Research in ECE (CMU) &
    Pragmatic Modeling: Robust NL Interface (MIT)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 April 1986 0108-EST
From: Paul Birkel@A.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Seminar - Metaplanning: Controlling Planning in a Complex Domain (CMU)


                          Metaplanning:

             Controlling Planning in a Complex Domain

                      Dissertation Proposal

                        Friday, April 4th
                          1:00-2:30 PM
                         Wean Hall 5409


All planners metaplan; few do so explicitly. Many planners find very
simple control mechanisms sufficient; the added overhead of a metaplanner
outweighs any apparent advantages. Whether implementing an explicit
metaplanner increases the capabilities of the resulting system is unknown.
Complex domains, such as therapy planning, include problems which would
be best handled by a metaplanner identifying and choosing alternative
planning strategies separate from the process of plan generation. These
problems include: unresolvably conflicting goals, conflicting measures of
goal satisfaction, unreliable operators, and incompletely specified initial
states. Previous therapeutic (@b<MYCIN>, @b<ONCOCIN>) and non-therapeutic
(@b<NOAH>, @b<SIPE>) planners alike are incapable of explicitly reasoning
about, and solving, combinations of these types of problems. A hierarchical
therapeutic planner will be implemented based on a @b(MOLGEN/SPEX) hybrid
architecture incorporating both tactical planning and strategic metaplanning
components. Four additional planning techniques are proposed which will be
developed and integrated into the architecture. The metaplanner will
subsequently be extended to achieve acceptable clinical performance on two
dozen clinical cases covering all combinations of these problems. The
performance of the system with and without the planning extensions, and
with and without the metaplanner will be analyzed.

        A copy of the thesis proposal is available in the
        CS lounge, 4th floor, Wean Hall. Please contact me
        for additional copies of the proposal (its long!).

                birkel@a or x3074

------------------------------

Date: Mon 31 Mar 86 18:31:41-PST
From: Christine Pasley <pasley@SRI-KL>
Subject: Seminar - Rule-Based Systems and Heuristic Classification (SU)


                CS529 - AI In Design & Manufacturing
                Instructor: Dr. J. M. Tenenbaum

Title:          Rule-based Systems; Application to Heuristic Classification
Speaker:        William J. Clancey
From:           Knowledge Systems Laboratory
Date:           Wednesday, April 2, 1986
Time:           4:00 - 5:30
Place:          Terman 556


This talk provides an broad overview of expert systems research,
using the Neomycin program as an example.  We consider in particular the
rule-based knowledge representation, showing how rules can be controlled
by an inference procedure.  Generalizing from this example, we consider
first the heuristic classification method of problem solving, showing how
a broad range of well-structured problems--embracing forms of diagnosis,
catalog selection, and skeletal planning--are solved in typical expert
systems.  Next, we consider kinds of problems that expert systems can be
used to solve, emphasizing the idea of a "system in the world" that is being
synthesized or analyzed.  Finally, we introduce the idea of a qualitative
model, showing how different kinds of network formalisms are used in expert
systems to describe processes.  The material in this talk will enable you
to relate the kinds of problems, solution methods, and representations in
expert systems.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 1986 18:45-EST
From: gasser@usc-cse.usc.edu
Subject: Seminar - The MACE System (USC)

                 USC DPS GROUP MEETING

           Wednesday, 4/9/86   3:00 - 5:00 PM

                 Seaver Science 319

Les Gasser will speak on the MACE system.


MACE is a testbed for building generic Distribiuted AI systems from
organized collections of active "intelligent" entities called
@i[Agents] which run in parallel. It comprises a language for
describing agents, a language for describing a network of processors
upon which the agents run, and a simulator for executing the agents
in parallel. This talk will describe the philosophy and design goals of
MACE, the current versions of the MACE description languages, the
MACE simulator, and briefly discusses several experimental MACE
implementations.

The MACE language is constructed in two parts: the MACE Agent Description
Language which is sufficient for expressing agents or collections of
agents at any level (including composite agents), and the MACE
Environment Description Language which describes the underlying
computation hardware and simulator parameters. Individual
agents may draw upon other existing languages.

MACE has been implemented in COMMON LISP on a TI Explorer Lisp
Machine. We have several trial systems implemented (*) or partially
implemented (-).

- An ACTORS-like recursive Fibonacci computation which
  we have tested by creating up to 90 agents running in parallel.*

- An agent called BUILDER which interactively builds other agents
  through a second agent called USER-INTERFACE, both agents running
  in parallel.*

- An agent-based production system where each rule is an agent, and
  there is no global database nor centralized inference engine. (-)

- An 8-node hypercube with MACE agents running on each node, and a
  parallel broadcast facility among agents.*

- A distributed, multi-level blackboard built of agents. (-)

- A two-robot cooperative planner. (-)


Questions: Dr. Les Gasser, (213) 743-7794, gasser@usc-cse.usc.edu

------------------------------

Date: Wed 2 Apr 86 08:54:20-EST
From: Natalie F. Tarbet <NFT@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Seminar - Expert Systems for System Management (MIT)

       [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


Fourth in a series of seminars on Large and Complex Computer
             Systems in the Commercial World


     "Expert Systems for System Management and Control

                            or

    What jobs in a large computing center can be automated?"


                     Keith R. Milliken
              IBM, Thomas Watson Research Center
                    Yorktown Heights, NY

                         NE43-512A
             Wednesday, April 2, 1986 at 3:15 p.m.



Several years ago, IBM's Thomas Watson Research Center began to
develop an expert system to assist with the operation of a large
computing complex.  This expert system, called YES/MVS (Yorktown
Expert System / MVS Manager), runs in real-time and can either
give advice or automatically take actions to manage computing
resources and respond to problems in a running system. This system
is of interest because it actively helps control, in real-time,
a very complex process.  YES/MVS has been used extensively in the
Yorktown Computing Center, and a second version is now being developed.

We will briefly describe YES/MVS and then focus on some of the expert
system issues that have arisen during YES/MVS development and the
approaches taken to resolve them.  Two of the issues that will be
emphasized are (1) knowledge representation for process control
expert systems and (2) approaches to knowledge base organization
that reduce the difficulty involved in modifying a large knowledge base.
The latter issue is especially important in the automation of computing
system operation because there are large variations between computing
centers in operational policy.

We shall briefly describe related efforts to automatically analyze the
performance of large computing systems, to deveop a special purpose
shell for computer performance expert systems and to use rule-based
techniques to control resource allocation in a large computing system.

Host: Arvind

------------------------------

Date: Wed 2 Apr 86 17:21:06-PST
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: Seminar - Temporal Theorem Proving (SRI)

                      TEMPORAL THEOREM PROVING

                          Martin Abadi (MA@SAIL)
                       Stanford University

                    11:00 AM, MONDAY, April 7
         SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)

In spite of the wide range of applications of temporal logic,
proof techniques (especially for first-order temporal logic (FTL))
have been quite limited up to now.  We have developed a proof system R
for FTL. The system R is based on nonclausal resolution; proofs are
natural and generally short. Special quantifier rules, unification
techniques, and a resolution rule are introduced.  The system R is
directly useful for such tasks as verification of concurrent programs
and reasoning about hardware devices. Other uses of temporal resolution,
such as temporal-logic programming, are currently being considered.

We relate R to other proof systems for FTL and discuss completeness issues.
In particular, one variant of R is ``as complete as'' an extension of Peano
Arithmetic. We also describe resolution systems analogous to R for other modal
logics.  In fact, the resolution techniques and the corresponding completeness
arguments apply to a large class of modal logics.

------------------------------

Date: 2 April 1986 1720-EST
From: Betsy Herk@A.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Seminar - Network Propagation for Reasoning about Uncertainty (CMU)

Speaker:        Judea Pearl, UCLA
Date:           Tuesday, April 15
Time:           3:30 - 5:00
Place:          5409 Wean Hall
Title:          Network propagation for reasoning about uncertainty

                        Abstract:

In order to meet requirements of modularity, transparency and
flexibility, the designers of 1st-generation expert systems have
abandoned traditional probability theory and ventured to devise new
formalisms for managing uncertainties.  The talk will describe a
message-passing scheme in propositional networks which, using
traditional probability theory, fulfills these objectives of
expert systems technology.

I will argue that the notion of TRANSPARENCY is closely related to
reasoning with GRAPHS, namely, that an argument is perceived to be
"psychologically meaningful" if its derivational steps correspond
to mental tracings of pre-established links in some conceptual
dependency network.  Accordingly the first part of the talk will
introduce an axiomatic legitimization of representing inferential
dependencies by networks, and will compare the properties of two
such representations:  Markov Networks and Bayes Networks.

The second part will introduce a calculus for performing inferences
in Bayes Networks.  The impace of each new evidence is viewed as a
perturbation that propagates through the network via asynchronous
local communication among neighboring concepts.  We show that such
propagation mechanism facilitates flexible control strategies and
sound explanations, that it supports both predictive and diagnostic
inferences, that it is guaranteed (in sparse graphs) to converge in
time proportional to the network's diameter, and that every
proposition is eventually accorded a measure of belief consistent
with the axioms of probability theory.

------------------------------

Date: 3 April 1986 1023-EST
From: Richard Wallstein@A.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Seminar - Optical Artifical Intelligence Research in ECE (CMU)

Robotics Seminar

3:30 Friday April 11, 4623 Wean Hall

David Casasent, Director
Center for Excellence in Optical Data Processing
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering

OPTICAL ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE RESEARCH IN ECE

Optical feature extraction and correlation distortion-invariant multi-class
multi-object recognition and identification research will be reviewed.  This
will be followed by a discussion of optical artificial intelligence efforts
currently in progress.  This effort includes:  optical relational graph and
decision net processors, optical symbolic processors, optical associative
memory processors, and optical neural net processors.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 1986 09:57-EST
From: Brad Goodman <BGOODMAN at BBNG>
Subject: Seminar - Pragmatic Modeling: Robust NL Interface (MIT)

           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


                           BBN Laboratories Inc.
                        Science Development Program
                           AI/Education Seminar


Speaker:  Professor Sandra Carberry
          University of Delaware

Title:    Pragmatic  Modeling:  Toward a Robust Natural
          Language Interface

Date:     Tuesday, April 15th, 10:30 a.m.
Place:    2nd floor large conference room
          BBN Labs, 10 Moulton Street, Cambridge



                       PRAGMATIC MODELING:
            TOWARD A ROBUST NATURAL LANGUAGE INTERFACE





      Naturally occurring dialogue is both  imperfect  and  incomplete.  Not
only  does  the  information-seeker  fail to communicate all aspects of his
underlying task and partially constructed plan for  accomplishing  it,  but
also  his  utterances are often imperfectly or imcompletely formulated.  It
appears that human information-seekers expect  an  information-provider
to facilitate  a  productive  exchange  by assimilating the dialogue and
using this knowledge to remedy many of  the  information-seeker's  faulty
utterances.


      This talk will describe an on-going  research  effort  aimed  both  at
developing  techniques  for inferring and constructing a user model from
an information-seeking dialogue and at identifying strategies for  using
this model to develop more robust natural language interfaces.  Emphasis
will be on the dynamic  construction  of  the  task-related  plan
motivating   the information-seeker's   queries,  and  its application
in handling pragmatically ill-formed and incomplete utterances.

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂09-Apr-86  0104	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #70
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Apr 86  01:04:16 PST
Date: Tue  8 Apr 1986 21:30-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #70
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Wednesday, 9 Apr 1986      Volume 4 : Issue 70

Today's Topics:
  Queries - BKG Backgammon & LISP Machines & Games,
  Applications - Machine Translation,
  Correction - Research Credits for Aviation Week Survey,
  AI Tools - Common Lisp Systems & Borland Prolog,
  Book - Machine Learning: A Guide to Current Research,
  Databases - Nonmilitary AI Jobs & Reference Database on Logic,
  Techniques - Rete Algorithm Survey

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 86 16:37:00 GMT
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!ti-csl!dnichols@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: BKG request


I am interested in obtaining a copy of Hans Berliner's
famous BKG program. Does anyone know of an implementation
in LISP or for UNIX?
I would also love to have a copy of the source for studying.

Can anyone help or can anyone tell me if Mr. Berliner is
on the net and how to reach him?

Please respond to me rather than flooding this list.

 *USNail*              *electronic*
Dan Nichols            USENET: {ctvax,im4u,texsun,rice}!ti-csl!dnichols
POB 226015 M/S 238     ARPA:  Dnichols%TI-CSL@CSNet-Relay
Texas Instruments Inc. CSNET: Dnichols@Ti-CSL
Dallas, Texas          VOICE: (214) 995-6090
75266                  COMPUSERVE: 72067,1465

He o shite shiri-tsubome!

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 86 15:46:09 EST
From: reiter@harvard.HARVARD.EDU (Ehud Reiter)
Subject: LISP machines

Has anyone done a price/performance comparison of LISP machines with
conventional workstations running LISP?  If so, could they please send
me the results of their investigations?  I will summarize to the net if
there is a lot of interest.

My interest is academic (price/performance of different computer architectures)
not practical.  My initial hypothesis, based on looking over Richard Gabriel's
book PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION OF LISP SYSTEMS and on talking to people is
that special LISP processors offer a 2-3 fold speed advantage over a SUN 3 or
MicroVAX II class workstation, but at 2-3 fold greater cost.  Microcoded
architectures like Xerox's D-machines seem to offer little performance
improvement.

Please note that I am NOT interested in software issues like how good an
environment a machine provides.  This is strictly a hardware comparison.

Thanks.
                                                Ehud Reiter
                                                reiter@harvard.ARPA
                                                reiter@harvunxh.BITNET
                                                harvard!reiter.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 86 08:12 ???
From: Black holes are where God is dividing by zero
      <SHERZER%ti-eg.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Wanted: info on game playing systems

Can anyone give me any information on game playing AI programs? I
am especially interested in systems that play games where there is
a great deal of uncertainty.

Poker (or any card game) would be a good example. This is because
a Poker player does not have complete information about the other
players hand. The player is therefore forced to deduce the other
players hand by observing his play.

Chess would be a bad example because there is no missing
information. All possible moves for both players are known with
total certainty.

I would also be interested in any programs that build models of
a users behavior (especially a hostile one) with the goal of
guessing future behavior.

              Thanks in advance
              Allen Sherzer
              SHERZER@TI-EG.CSNET

------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 86 09:49 EST
From: Gocek.henr@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: Machine Translation of Documents

I read a similar report that said machines are translating 100,000 pages
of text per year for various applications, and in some cases reach 95
percent accuracy.  The article I read, which was printed in the
Rochester Democrat & Chronicle on Sunday, 4/6/86, appeared to be
prompted by Xerox's use of machine translation.  (Xerox is big in
Rochester.)  The 95 percent accuracy was reached only in very
specialized applications, though.  Highly technical applications where
the technical jargon is unambiguous is a good application for machine
translation.  The European Common Market is trying to use a machine
translation system and is not obtaining 90 percent accuracy.

Gary
Gocek.Henr@Xerox.Com

------------------------------

Date: Tue 8 Apr 86 13:19:44-PST
From: GARVEY@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: Re: Aviation Week Technical Survey

I think you should have given credit where credit is due: for example,
the DARPA Pilot's Associate program is also jointly supported by
Lockheed-Georgia and McDonnell Aircraft Company, since they together
are providing approximately half of the total $20 million.  Likewise,
the Autonomous Land Vehicle is jointly supported by DARPA and
Martin-Marietta and the first Navy Battle-Management Program (FRESH)
is partially supported by TI.

Cheers,
Tom

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 86  1257 PST
From: Les Earnest <LES@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Common Lisp systems

We have been reviewing Common Lisp implementations that run on Sun workstations.
The principal alternatives appear to be those made by Lucid and marketed
by Sun (415 965-780), Franz Inc. (415 769-5656) and Kyoto University, which
is marketed by Ibuki (415 949-1126).  We expect to be getting some of each
of these implementations for various purposes.  Ibuki's product
description is attached.

        Les Earnest

********************************************************************************


                          KCL PRODUCT DESCRIPTION


Kyoto Common Lisp (KCL) is a full implementation of Common Lisp.  It
contains all the Common Lisp functions, macros and special forms defined
in the Common Lisp Reference Manual.  It has both a compiler and an
interpreter.  Full sources are available for modification.

KCL was developed at the Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences,
Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan by Masami Hagiya and Taiichi Yuasa.
It is used throughout Japan for building expert systems and conducting
research in Artificial Intelligence.


                            THE FEATURES OF KCL

-- KCL is complete:  It supports all Common Lisp functions, macros and
   special forms defined in the Common Lisp Reference Manual; COMMON LISP:
   THE LANGUAGE, by Guy L. Steele et al, Digital Press, 1984.

-- A complete KCL is small:  It is only 1.4 MB with interpreter and
   compiler loaded.  For customers with source code,  this core image may be
   made even smaller by separating the compiler, intepreter and run-times
   and making everything inessential autoloadable.

-- KCL is efficient:  Its compilation time (including the two passes)
   and run time (both of compiled and interpreted code) have times
   comparable with the other Commmon Lisps present on the market
   (benchmarks appear in the KCL report).

-- The kernal of KCL is written in C and the rest in Common Lisp itself.
   Thus KCL is totally embedded in the C language and provides clean
   access to the underlying operating system.

-- KCL uses C and the standard C libraries as the interface to the
   operating system.  Using the standard I/O facilities greatly enhances
   the portability of KCL.

-- The KCL compiler is a two pass compiler with a first pass from LISP
   to C and a second from C to compiled code.  This allows the use of
   any optimizing C running on the machine to create efficient code which
   is totally compatible with preexisting compiled C code.

-- Having a kernel written in C and compiling to C, KCL is highly
   portable and independent of the machine and operating system.  It
   currently runs on the machines of six manufacturers and more are being
   added soon.

-- All KCL versions are made from the same sources.  This means that
   all versions behave the same and any Common Lisp code can be cross-
   compiled (by the KCL compiler) and the C code generated can be used
   on any of the systems running KCL.

-- The runtime efficiency of interpreted code has been as important a
   design criterion as the efficiency of compiled code.  This, together
   with its small size makes KCL appropriate for teaching.  Educational
   discounts are available.


IBUKI is dedicated to providing high quality software that is fairly priced
and allows the people using it maximal flexibility to get their problems
solved.   We believe in symbolic computing and want to make it available
on a wide scale.  For this reason we provide source code and simple,
inexpensive licensing arrangements.

Versions for VAXes and SUNs running UNIX 4.2 bsd are currently available
in the US and are being distributed by IBUKI.  For commercial use,
distribution fees are $700 per CPU for the object code and an additional
$700 for the sources.  For educational institutions the distribution fees
are $450 object and sources respectively.  Quantity discounts are available.

For further information about ordering, contact

IBUKI
399 Main Street
Los Altos, CA 94022

Phone: 415 949-1126
Telex: 348369
Netmail: KCL@SU-Carmel.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 86 21:33:29 GMT
From: dual!islenet!jayf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jay Fields)
Subject: Borland Prolog

I just read in today's Infoworld that Borland has announced
a new Prolog for the IBM priced at 99.95.  They didn't say,
"Sorry, one per customer," either.

Aloha,
J Fields

PRC, Honolulu
...ihnp4/islenet/jayf
/* The usual disclaimers go here */

------------------------------

Date: 3 April 1986 1616-EST
From: Jaime Carbonell@A.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Yet another ML book...

           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Not to be confused with "Machine Learning Vol I" and "... Vol II",
Kluwer Academic Publishers is coming out with a book titled:
"Machine Learning: A Guide to Current Research", which contains
a zillion (i.e. 77) very short papers -- rather than a lot fewer, but
much more detailed papers of the two ML volumes.  Thus, the
Kluwer book is very useful as a survey and guide to the symbolic
machine learning field, but not as useful for in-depth analysis
of techniques, ideas or applications.  Most of the short papers
are revised versions of those presented at the 1985 Machine
Learning III workshop.

[...]  There's a 30% discount on the 39.95 price and no shipping cost
(hence: 27.95) for prepaid orders received "soon" (ignore the April 1
date on the form).

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1986  14:23 EST
From: HENRY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: AI Jobs


A while back on this list, I mentioned a job bulletin board
sponsored by High Technology Professionals for Peace. It is
now available.  The number is (617) 969-2273, and hours of
operation are after 5 PM Eastern time weekdays and all day weekends.
It lists employers recruiting for non-military jobs.  Later
versions of the system will provide keyword retrieval.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 86 22:22:39 GMT
From: allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!
      abc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andy Cheese)
Subject: Reference Database on Logic

I currently post out a reference database on functional and logic
languages, denotational semantics and formal methods to various people.
It is never up to date but i add more when i have the time. If anybody
is interesting in recieving a copy, i post it at the beginning of every
month, please reply and i will add you to my distribution list.

Andy Cheese
Department of Computer Science
University of Nottingham
University Park
Nottingham
NG7 2RD
England

ARPA : abc@uk.ac.nott.cs

UUCP : ukc!nott.cs!abc

Andy Cheese

------------------------------

Date: Wed 2 Apr 86 10:46:43-PST
From: Matt Heffron <BEC.HEFFRON@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Subject: Rete query summary

Thanks to all who replied to my query about Rete algorithm info.
Here is a summary of the replies:

    From: Dan Scales <SCALES@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>

    I'm doing a master's thesis on modifying the Rete network
    implementation in OPS5 to be more efficient for an AI architecture
    called SOAR built on top of OPS5.  The main references for the Rete
    network itself are:

    Forgy, C. L., On the Efficient Implementation of Production Systems.
    PhD thesis, Dept. of Computer Science, CMU, February, 1979.

    Forgy, C. L.  Rete:  A Fast Algorithm for the Many Pattern/Many Object
    Pattern Match Problem, Artifical Intelligence 19(1), September 1982,
    17-37.

    Also, you should try to get the OPS5 (or other OPS) source code.  I
    assume it is freely distributed, since we have it here at Stanford.
    Unfortunately, it is not commented at all.
    ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←

    From: Duke Briscoe <duke@mitre.ARPA>

    ...  The person in the office next to mine has implemented the Rete
    algorithm.  It doesn't sound like he had too much trouble doing it.
    I guess the tricky part is keeping track of variable bindings for
    different invocations of a rule.
    ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←

    From: Robert Farrell <farrell@YALE.ARPA>

    Lee Brownston, Elaine Kant, Nancy Martin and I have a book called
    "Programming Expert Systems in OPS5" available that describes the
    algorithm in some detail. Also look at Forgy's AAAI article about
    how to implement them in assembler and his thesis from CMU.
    Or you can contact Forgy directectly at Forgy@CMU-CS-A.
    Also Liz Allen (used to be at MD) has hacked up one in the YAPS system,
    so she would be of help. Please don't contact me - I'm too busy.
    ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←

    FROM:  E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU

    In response to  your query regarding Rete algorithms, here
    is a reference to a conference that will be published in April.
    It may prove useful to you:

    D BOOK22 Applications of Artificial Intelligence\
    %I Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers\
    %D 1-3 April 1986\
    %N 635\
    %C Orlando

    %A L. Lafferty
    %A D. Bridgeland
    %T Scavenger: an Experimental Rete Compiler
    %B BOOK22
    %K AI01
    ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←

    From: Dan Miranker <DAN@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>

    A cornerstone of my thesis, which I am just completing, is
    the development of a new production system algorithm, TREAT,
    and its comparison to RETE.

    The preliminary results are just coming in.  Even though
    TREAT was motivated by the algorithmic requirements of parallel
    processing it is doing better even in a sequential environment.

    I have an OPS5 implementation just coming to life.  It appears that
    TREAT reduces the number of comparisons to do variable binding by
    about 30%.  (TREAT does more work on an add to wm, but eliminates all
    the work RETE has to unwind when doing a delete).  TREAT also doen't
    use any of the "beta memories", which can be combinatorially explosive
    in size.  So it does better in space as well.  The absolute speed of
    the two OPS5 implementations,(mine and Forgy's) is currently roughly
    the same, but we haven't yet made any attempt to cleanup and speed up
    our code.

    The TREAT algorithm is also much easier to implement.  Our run
    time interpreter is 4 pages of LISP compared to Forgy's 12.

    The TREAT algorithm was described in the 1984 International
    conference on fifth generation computing, held in Tokyo.
    There is a slight error in the algorithm as published.  If you
    think you will be implementing TREAT let me know and I'll finally
    insert the correction into the tech report version and send
    that to you.
    ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←

    From: Jim Wogulis <wogulis@ICSE.UCI.EDU>

    We have a production system here that was developed my a number
    of people over a long period of time. Currently, Pat Langley
    has taken over maintaining/improving the system. It is written
    in Franzlisp, and I have ported it to Interlisp-D.

    Prism uses a rete net to store all the partial matches from
    the rules and facts. We will send it to anyone who is willing
    to pay for the taping charges (I think $100 for tape or floppy
    and $30 for the manual). This might help since there would
    be code to look at.
    ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←


                                Matt Heffron

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂09-Apr-86  0328	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #71
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Apr 86  03:27:55 PST
Date: Tue  8 Apr 1986 21:51-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #71
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Wednesday, 9 Apr 1986      Volume 4 : Issue 71

Today's Topics:
  Conferences - AAAI &
    Ames Symposium on Manufacturing Systems &
    Automated Reasoning Workshop 1986 &
    Knowledge Engineering Forum

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 86 13:58:40 GMT
From: decvax!linus!raybed2!gxm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (GERARD MAYER)
Subject: Conference - AAAI

The national conference on artificial intelligence AAAI-86 is Aug 11-15, 1986
Philadelphia, PA. Send program and registration inquiries to: AAAI-86, AAAI,
445 Burgess Dr., Menlo Park, CA 94025. This year there will be sessions (as
in the past) and a new emphasis on workshops. See AI magazine, winter 1986
for more information.

                                                Gerard Mayer
                                                Raytheon Research Division

                                                uucp  ..linus!raybed2!gxm

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 86 08:33:51 pst
From: eugene@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Conference - Ames Symposium on Manufacturing Systems

From:   MER::ANDREWS

              National Aeronautics and Space Administration
                         Ames Research Center


                             SYMPOSIUM

        MODELING AND CONTROL IN FLEXIBLE MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS

                      Friday, April 11, 1986


The fiels of ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE and AUTOMATIC CONTROL have been
developing independently of one another despite many intrinsic common
interests.  A series of symposia is planned to explore this common ground
to better understand what are the long-range issues and fruitful directions
of basic research in AUTOMATIC CONTROL THEORY.

The present sysmposium is organized by Professor Giuseppe Menga, Department
of Automation and Information, Politecnico di Torino, Italy.

PROGRAM:  Friday, April 11, 1986

Morning
        9:30 - 10:00  Yu-Chi Ho, Harvard University
        Opening Address - Modern System Theory in Manufacturing Applications

        10:00 - 11:00  Giuseppe Menga, Politecnico di Torino
        Modeling Flexible Manufacturing Systems by Heuristic Network Analysis

        11:00 - 12:00  Yu-Chi Ho, Harvard University
        Perturbation Analysis in Discrete Event Dynamic Systems: An
        Application to Manufacturing

Afternoon
        1:00 - 2:00   Giuseppe Menga, Politecnico di Torino
        The Planning and Control System for Flexible Manufacturing Shops

        2:00 - 3:00   Agostino Villa, Politecnico di Torino
        Planning and Control in Multi-Stage Multi-Product Systems


The symposium will be held in Conference Room 172 in Building 233.  For
additional information, please contact anyone listed below:

Ralph Bach (415)695-5429     Rajiv Mehta x5440     George Meyer x5444
mar.bach@ames-vmsb.ARPA

***************************************************************************

VISITORS ARE WELCOME: Register and obtain vehicle pass at Ames Visitor
Reception Building (N-253) or the Security Station near Gate 18.  Do not
use the Navy Main Gate.

Non-citizens (except Permanent Residents) must have prior approval from the
Director's Office one week in advance.  Submit requests to the point of
contact indicated above.  Non-citizens must register at the Visitor
Reception Building.  Permanent Residents are required to show Alien
Registration Card at the time of registration.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Apr 86 18:35:15 cst
From: stevens@anl-mcs.ARPA (Rick Lyndon Stevens)
Subject: Conference - Automated Reasoning Workshop 1986


                  Automated Reasoning Workshop 1986

              Mathematics and Computer Science Division

                     Argonne National Laboratory

  You are invited to a workshop on automated reasoning to  be  held
  at  Argonne  National  Laboratory  on June 24 and 25, 1986.  This
  workshop, the fifth of its kind, will take the form of a  set  of
  tutorials.   Our  first  objective is to acquaint people with the
  basic aspects of automated reasoning and with the possible appli-
  cations.  Thus we shall discuss some of the previously open ques-
  tions we have solved and feature topics such  as  the  design  of
  logic  circuits,  the validation of existing circuit designs, and
  proving properties of computer programs.  Our second objective is
  to  learn  of new problems on which the current methodology might
  have an impact.  In fact, the preceding  workshops  did  lead  to
  such  discoveries,  as  well  as to collaborative efforts to seek
  solutions to these problems.  Enclosed is  a  tentative  schedule
  that  briefly  describes the various talks.  On the first day, we
  shall begin with an introductory lecture on what  automated  rea-
  soning  is.   We shall illustrate the various concepts first with
  puzzles.  Next, we shall focus on some applications of  automated
  reasoning.  We shall include a demonstration of an automated rea-
  soning program (ITP) that is portable, runs on  relatively  inex-
  pensive machines, and is available to other users.  On the second
  day we shall give an introduction to Prolog,  discuss  additional
  applications,  and  focus on state/space problems.  On both days,
  we have scheduled reviews of the material and  open  discussions.
  We  welcome  you  to  this  1986 workshop on automated reasoning.
  Participation will require a small charge, no more than $60.  In-
  cluded in this fee will be the cost of the book Automated Reason-
  ing:  Introduction and Applications, written  by  Wos,  Overbeek,
  Lusk, and Boyle and published by Prentice-Hall.  This book covers
  the field of automated reasoning from its basic elements  through
  various applications. Its tutorial nature will guide our approach
  to the workshop.  We urge you to respond to  this  invitation  as
  soon  as  possible  for, to retain the tutorial atmosphere of the
  workshop, we may be forced to limit the number  of  participants.
  The  order  in  which  requests are received will be an important
  parameter in issuing invitations to attend the workshop.


  Sincerely,



  L. Wos
  Senior Mathematician

  Please send all replies to

  ARPA:  wos@anl-mcs.arpa

  or

  Dr. Larry Wos
  Mathematics and Computer Science Division
  Argonne National Laboratory
  Argonne IL 60439



                Schedule for Automated Reasoning Workshop 1986

                          June 24-25, 1986

                     Argonne National Laboratory
                          Argonne, Illinois

  Tuesday, June 24

   9:00 - 9:15             Preliminary remarks - Larry Wos

   9:15 - 10:15            Introduction to  automated  reasoning  - Larry Wos

  10:15 - 10:30            Break

  10:30 - 11:30            Solving reasoning puzzles - Brian Smith

  11:30 - 12:30            Lunch

  12:30 -  1:15            Choices  of  strategies  and  inference rules
                           - Rusty Lusk

   1:15 - 1:30             Demonstration

   1:30 - 1:45             Break

   1:45 - 2:45             Proving properties of computer  programs - Jim Boyle

   2:45 - 3:00             Closing discussion - Larry Wos

  Wednesday, June 25

   9:00 - 9:15             Discussion - Larry Wos

   9:15 - 10:15            Introduction to Prolog - Rusty Lusk

  10:15 - 10:30            Break

  10:30 - 11:30            State-space problems - Rusty Lusk

  11:30 - 12:30            Lunch

  12:30 - 1:15             Circuit  design  and  validation  -  Jim Boyle

   1:15 - 1:45             Open problems in mathematics and logic - Rusty Lusk

   1:45 - 2:00             Break

   2:00 - 2:45             Details of the solution of an open problem in logic
                           - Larry Wos

   2:45 - 3:15             Our automated reasoning software - Rusty Lusk

   3:15 - 3:30             Closing remarks - Larry Wos

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 86 10:45:07 est
From: Tom Scott <scott%bgsu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Conference - Knowledge Engineering Forum

I. ANNOUNCEMENT

                              Announcing

                     KNOWLEDGE-ENGINEERING FORUM

                         Tuesday, May 6, 1986
                 University of Wisconsin-Green Bay
                           Christie Theatre

        Announcing a  conference on  knowledge   engineering (KE)  and
applications of artificial intelligence (AI) in business  and industry
in the Northeastern Wisconsin  area.   Featured are  presentations  by
practitioners  in the field, demonstrations of  hardware and software,
and an executive briefing/group discussion  on developing applications
and building an in-house KE group in your own situation.

        The fee for attending the conference is $30.00.  Enrollment in
the conference is limited.  For further  information about  attendance
and fee payment, please contact

        Prof. Dennis Girard
        College of Environmental Sciences
        University of Wisconsin-Green Bay
        Green Bay, WI  54301-7001
        Phone: 414-465-2285 (office)
               414-465-2371 (secretaries)

II. SCHEDULE OF EVENTS

        8:30    Registration and coffee hour

        9:00    "Welcome" by David Jowett, Vice-Chancellor for
                Academic Affairs, UW-Green Bay

        9:15    "An Overview of Knowledge Engineering: The Theory,
                Practice, and Technology of Knowledge-Based Decision-
                Support Systems" by Roger Pick, Assistant Professor,
                Information Systems, Graduate School of Business,
                UW-Madison

        9:45    "Artificial Intelligence and Knowledge Engineering: A
                Perspective on the Future" by Clarke Harrison,
                Symbolics, Inc., Chicago, IL

        10:15   Break

        10:30   "Knowledge Engineering: A Practical Perspective" by
                Stephen Zvolner, Senior Research Scientist, Johnson
                Controls, Milwaukee, WI

        11:30   Lunch and informal group discussions

        1:00    Executive Briefing/Group Discussion

                (1) Executive Briefing: "Knowledge Engineering
                    Methodology" by Gene Korienek, Johnson Controls,
                    Milwaukee, WI

                (2) Group Discussion: "Developing an In-House
                    Knowledge-Engineering Group" by those attending
                    the conference

        2:30    Break

        2:45    Hardware and Software Demonstrations (to be announced)

        3:45    Review and Closing

III. COMMENTS AND TENTATIVE OUTLINE OF GENE KORIENEK'S EXECUTIVE
     BRIEFING ON KE METHODOLOGY

        The cornerstone of the conference is the 1:00-2:30 slot, which
is dedicated to the executive briefing on KE methodology and the group
discussion on developing  in-house KE groups.   The executive briefing
will be presented by Gene Korienek of Johnson Controls.   Gene is well
versed  in   the   theory, practice,   and   technology  of  knowledge
engineering and will integrate his presentation on KE methodology with
the group discussion on developing in-house KE groups.

        The key to  the integration of   the topics of  the  executive
briefing  and the  group  discussion  is to view  KE methodology on an
object level and the developing of in-house KE groups on a meta level.
Executives and managers are  concerned with the  design, building, and
maintaining of KE groups, which in turn are concerned with the design,
building, and maintaining of KE systems: executives and managers build
groups that build KE systems.  In order to build  a KE group, one must
have at least a general idea how to build a KE system.  The two topics
are intimately related and are best considered in one breath.

        Gene  plans to complete his   presentation in  the first  hour
(1:00-2:00).  During that time he will solicit  questions and comments
and will generally encourage group  participation.  The last half hour
(2:00-2:30) will be given over to the dynamics of group discussion.

        Gene's presentation on KE methodology will include some of the
following points of interest:

        (1) KE methodology  in general:  What  is  the methodology for
the  engineering  of  knowledge?  Does  KE    methodology differ  from
previous methodologies  for the design,  building,  and maintenance of
MIS and EDP applications?  If there is a difference, what is it?  Does
the  process of  iterative development   and   testing occur more   in
knowledge engineering than in MIS/EDP?  What role does  Prolog play in
the prototyping of KE systems?

        (2) The recruiting, training, and maintaining  of personnel to
staff an in-house KE group: How can local talent be  developed?  Do KE
personnel  have to be trained and  imported from   Silicon  Valley and
Boston, or  can  they be  trained  locally?    Once the  personnel are
recruited and  trained,  how can  they  be maintained?     How does  a
corporation in Northeastern Wisconsin keep  the interest and education
level of its in-house KE group alive?  What is to prevent members of a
KE group from leaving the local area for  greener pastures on the East
and West Coasts?

        (3) The acquisition and  development of hardware  and software
environments to be used by an in-house KE group in  the development of
KE  systems:  Why have  DEC-compatible  systems  and  the VAX computer
family  been so  popular in the  AI/KE  community?   How can the  Unix
development  environment for KE  systems be integrated  with  the  IBM
environment  that many  corporations   have    installed   for MIS/EDP
applications?

        How do the  GNU Project and   the  emergence of  freeware as a
        viable  economic  force  affect a   corporation's strategic KE
        plan?  What is the GNU Project Emacs?

        What is GNU  Emacs?  It is  said that Emacs  is  more than  an
        editor: Emacs is an entire development  environment which fits
        naturally  and   effortlessly    into    a   Unix  development
        environment.  Why is this the case?

        Should  a business or   industrial corporation that   plans to
        develop an in-house KE group follow  the traditional  academic
        AI/KE path of DEC, VAX,  Unix, and GNU   Emacs, or should  the
        corporation  instead follow  the  commercial path  laid out by
        IBM?  What are the  theoretical,  practical, and technological
        considerations for comparing, contrasting, and integrating the
        DEC/VAX/Unix/Emacs environment with the IBM environment?

        (4) The  human  process of actually building  KE systems: What
are the group dynamics involved in the process of building KE systems?
How do this  process and  the group  dynamics of  in-house  KE  groups
differ from what takes place under the MIS/EDP paradigm?

IV. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND OUTLINE OF POSSIBLE TOPICS FOR THE GROUP
    DISCUSSION ON DEVELOPING IN-HOUSE KNOWLEDGE-ENGINEERING GROUPS

        The development of an in-house  knowledge-engineering group is
a deliberate and gradual  process that unfolds within a  corporation's
long-range strategic plan.  This process requires a commitment on both
the corporate and  community  levels in order  to  train, recruit, and
maintain  the    human resources and   to   acquire  and   develop the
knowledge-engineering environment.  There are three  areas to consider
in the  development of  in-house  KE groups: A.   Individual Corporate
Action; B. Community Action; C. A Vision of Knowledge Engineering.

A. Individual Corporate Action

        (1) Cooperation with other businesses in the training and
            maintaining of local personnel

        (2) A team to fulfill the five basic functions of each KE
            project:

                (a) Project leader
                (b) Domain expert--hence the name "expert system"
                (c) Conceptualist: Plan, design, and document
                (d) Encoder: Implement and test
                (e) Systems programmer: Unix and IBM systems

B. Community Action

        (1) Formation of an ACM-SIGART chapter

        (2) Teaching of AI languages (Lisp, Prolog), production
            systems (ITP, OPS5, OPS83), and KE courses in area high
            schools, technical colleges, and at the university (both
            undergraduate and graduate levels)

        (3) Establishment of a regional AI/KE training center for
            Northeastern Wisconsin at the university level

C. A Vision of Knowledge Engineering

        (1) The Knowledge Age: theory, practice, and technology

                (a) The practical focus of KE on decision-support
                    systems (DSS) and information-retrieval systems
                    (IRS) differentiates KE from AI.

                (b) Such articles as "Why Computers May Never Think
                    Like People" (Hubert and Stuart Dreyfus,
                    "Technology Review", January, 1986) are of
                    immediate benefit to KE and of questionable value
                    to AI.

        (2) Theory, practice, and technology: A modern structure in
            America and Japan inherited from ancient Greece (theoria,
            praxis, and techne)

                (a) Forthcoming Prentice-Hall manuscript, "A Vision of
                    Knowledge Engineering" by Tom Scott (Autumn 1987)

                (b) Japanese R&D projects in AI/KE: Fifth Generation
                    Computing System (FGCS) and Sixth Generation
                    Computing System (SGCS)

                (c) MCC: America's cooperative challenge to Japanese
                    FGCS and SGCS

V. FINAL COMMENTS

        Since the  detailed format  and  content of the conference are
still being arranged, the schedule of events and comments in the above
four sections (I-IV) are subject to  change.   For  information on the
final schedule and attendance at  the conference, please contact Prof.
Dennis Girard at the phone number or address listed in section I.

                                * * *

        Tom Scott                    CSNET: scott@bgsu
        Dept. of Math. & Stat.       ARPANET: scott%bgsu@csnet-relay
        Bowling Green State Univ.    UUCP: cbosgd!osu-eddie!bgsuvax!scott
        Bowling Green OH 43403-0221  ATT: 419-372-2636 (work)

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂09-Apr-86  0550	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #72
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Apr 86  05:49:51 PST
Date: Tue  8 Apr 1986 22:08-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #72
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Wednesday, 9 Apr 1986      Volume 4 : Issue 72

Today's Topics:
  Psychology - Computer Emotions

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 86 19:27:23 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!harvard!bu-cs!bzs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Computer Dialogue


Re: should computers display emotions

I guess a question I would be more comfortable with is "would people
be happier if computers mimicked emotions". Ok, from experience we
see that people don't love seeing messages like "Segmentation Violation --
Core Dumped" (although some of us for different reasons.)

Would they be 'happier' if it said 'ouch'? Well, probably not, but the
question probably comes down to more of a human-engineering machine
interface issue.

We certainly got somewhat ridiculous at one extreme (we being systems
people not unlike myself, maybe not you) with things like:

IEF007001 PSW=001049FC 0E100302

pretending to be error messages, let's face it, that's no less artificial
(and barely more useful unless you have a manual in hand and know how
to use that manual and know how to understand that manual, often the
manual was written by the same sort of brain that thought IEF007001
was helpful) than 'ouch'. We (again, we system types) have just come
to accept that sort of cruft as being socially correct (at least not
embarrasing as we might feel if we put 'ouch' into our O/S err routines).

The macintosh displays a a frowning face when it's real unhappy, most
people I know chuckled once and then remarked "that's really stupid,
how about some useful info jerks?" (like IEF007001?) I wouldn't be the
least bit surprised to hear that those smiley/frowney macs lost them
heaps of sales (we can't have CUTE on the CEO's desk...give me IEH007001!)

I think we keep straddling some line of appearing real professional
(IEF007001) vs terminal cutesiness (ouch.) I suppose there is a huge
middle ground with some dialogue (like computer dialogues).

        -Barry Shein, Boston University

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 86 23:36:03 GMT
From: decvax!hplabsb!marvit@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Peter Marvit)
Subject: Re: Computer Dialogue

> Mark Davis asks if computers have anything akin to human feelings.
>
> Barry Kort  responds with a wonderful description of a gigantic telephone
  switching system and draws a powerful parallel with its sensors and
  resulting information about physical problems and the very human sense of
  pain.

A friend of mine and I were discussing a similar point. If a computer
were able to tell us "what it is like to be a computer," would it be considered
concious?  That is, what would be our nomenclature for a system which could
describe its innards and current state (and possibly modify some of itself -
perhaps by taking "home remedies").

My friend is a philosopher and I am a computerscientist/humanist (admittedly
an oxymoron at times).  I contend conciousness is a slippery term which I
find uncomfortable.  Further, existing computer systems exhibit such behavior,
albeit in a somewhat crude and unsophiticated fashion (see "df" or "fsck").
Barry gave another excellent example, cited above.

However, the question is still a valid one- if one looks beyond the operational
issues and poses the more subtle philosophical query: What is it like to "be"
anything and what would/could a computer say about itself?  At one point,
I argued that the question may be completely outside the computer's world view.
That is, it would be like asking a five year old what sex feels like (please,
no flames about sophisticated tykes).  The computer wouldn't have the vocabu-
lary or internal model to be able to answer that.  Yet, if we programmed
that capability in ...

I look forward to your thoughts on the net or to me.

Peter Marvit      ...!hplabs!marvit
                  Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 86 14:53:58 GMT
From: nike!riacs!seismo!cit-vax!trent@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ray Trent)
Subject: Re: re: Computer Dialogue #1

In article <2345@jhunix.UUCP> ins←akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>toasters do"... doesn't mean that a combination of many toasters cannot, and
>You are actually quite correct.  There's one problem here.  Toasters can store
>perhaps two or three bytes of information.  Consider how many toasters

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the currently
dominant theory about the way human beings remember things says
that brain store NO "bytes" of information at all, but that
memory is a congregate effect generated by the ←interconnections←
of the brain cells.

The only papers I have read on this subject are by John Hopfield
here at Caltech. Does anyone out there have any pointers to good
research (people or papers) being done in this field? (have
email, will summarize)

I am particularly interested by this subject because I have seen
simple programs that simulate the connection matrix of a simple
neural network. This program can "remember" things in a
connection matrix, and then "recall" them at a later time given
only pieces of the original data. Sample session:

% learn "Ross" "Richard" "Sandy"...
% ask "Ro"
Ross
% ask "Ri"
Richard
% ask "R"
Rqchird

Note the program's reaction to an ambiguous request; it
extrapolated from what it "knew" to a reasonable guess at a "real
memory" (note that 'i' + 8 = 'q' and 'a' + 8 = 'i' so the memory
was correct up to 1 bit in each of two places.)

The interesting thing about this sort of scheme is its reaction
to failed active elements. If you destroy (delete) several
locations in the connection matrix, the program doesn't lose any
specific knowledge, but it becomes harder for it to extrapolate
to the "real memory" and distinguish these from "spurious
memories." Of course, after a certain point...things break down
completely, but it's still interesting.

"In a valiant attempt to save the universe, his large intestine
leapt out of his body and throttled him..."

(if you don't understand that, ignore it.)


--
                                        ../ray\..
                                (trent@csvax.caltech.edu)
"The above is someone else's opinion only at great coincidence"

------------------------------

Date: Wed 2 Apr 86 17:41:51-PST
From: GARVEY@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: Re: Computer Dialogue

Why don't you try to define what you mean by "feel?"  If you get
beyond a definition based on fairly mechanistic principles, then you
have a discussion; if you don't, then your computer will probably be
shown (uninterestingly) to feel by definition.  I think it's koans
like this (assuming it isn't an April Fool joke) that keep the Dreyfi
in business and that suggest that the field needs serious tightening.

If the computer should "feel" anything, why should you assume that it
feels bad when it doesn't seem to be working correctly?  Perhaps it's
taking a vacation; probably it hates people and loves to make them
mad.

Cheers,
Tom

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 86 12:53:34 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hounx!kort@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (B.KORT)
Subject: Re: Computer Dialogue

Peter Marvit asks if computers can have anything akin to consciousness
or self-awareness similar to humans.  Excellent question.

One thing that computers *can* have is simulation models of other
systems.  The National Weather Bureau's computers have a model
of atmospheric dynamics that tracks the evolution of weather patterns
with sufficient accuracy that their forecasts are at least useful,
if not perfect.

NASA and JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) have elaborate computer
models of spacecraft behavior and interplanetary ballistics, which
accurately track the behavior and trajectory of the real mission
hardware.

Computers can also have models of other computers, which emulate
in software the functioning of another piece of hardware.

What would happen if you gave a computer a software model of *its
own* hardware configuration and functioning?  The computer could
run the model with various perturbations (e.g. faults or design
changes) and see what happened.  Now suppose that the computer
was empowered to use this model in conjunction with its own
fault-detection network.  The computer could diagnose many of
its own ills, and choose remedial action.  It could also explore
the wisdom of possible reconfigurations or redesigns.  Digital
Equipment Corporation (DEC) has an Expert System that works out
optimal configurations for their VAX line of computers.  The
Expert Systems runs on....(you guessed it)... a VAX.

If a computer can have a reliable model of itself, and can use
that model to maintain and enhance its own well-being, are we
very far away from rudimentary consciousness?

For some delightful and delicious reading on computer self-awareness,
the meaning of the word "soul", and related philosophical musings,
I recommend ←The Mind's I←, composed and arranged by Douglas Hofstadter
and Daniel Dennett.

--Barry Kort  ...ihnp4!houxm!hounx!kort

------------------------------

Date: Sat,  5 Apr 86 14:46:35 GMT
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: A Byte of Toast.

Quoted in Vol 4 # 62 :-
``Our brains are enormously complex computers''.
If so, then do we all run the same operating system?
And what are the operating systems of toasters?
Gordon Joly,
ARPA: gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 86 03:09:16 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!rochester
      !rocksanne!sunybcs!ellie!colonel@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: what's it like (TV dialogue #1)

Reporter:  "Mr. Computer, what's it like to be a computer?"
Computer:  "Well, it's hard to explain, Frank, ..."
Reporter:  "For example, what's it like to be able to read a magtape
           at 6250 bpi?"
Computer:  "It feels just great, Frank.  Really great."

Col. G. L. Sicherman
UU: ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel
CS: colonel@buffalo-cs
BI: csdsicher@sunyabva

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂09-Apr-86  0826	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #73
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Apr 86  08:26:02 PST
Date: Tue  8 Apr 1986 22:14-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #73
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Wednesday, 9 Apr 1986      Volume 4 : Issue 73

Today's Topics:
  Psychology - Survival Instinct & Emotions

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 86 10:23:18 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!ll-xn
      !mit-amt!mit-eddie!psi@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Computer Dialogue

Hi:
        Before the recent tragedy, there had been a number of
instances where the space shuttle computers aborted the mission in the
final seconds before launch.  My explanation for this was that the
on-board computers were displaying a form of 'programmed survival
instinct.'  In short: they were programmed to survive, and if the
launch had continued, they might not have.

        Almost everyone I told explained this to back then was
incredulous.  "You don't actually ←believe← that the computer wanted
to survive, do you?" was a typical comment.  I feel this brings out an
important point, though, which deals with simulation, feelings, and
our understanding of The Real Thing.

        On a computer, simulating an event and the actual event may be
indistinguishable.  (This does not mean, as one of my friends
believed, that in a computer simulation of a hurricane, the simulated
victims of the storm would be rained upon by square-root symbols.;-))
For example, if a computer can run programs in the language Lisp and
we then write a simulator for the language CLU in Lisp, then the
computer can actually run programs in CLU.

        Now, what does this mean for feelings?  Well, I won't go that
far, but I would assert that a 'survival instinct' is a much simpler
thing that can be simulated on a computer.  The space shuttle
computers could be thought of as programmed to survive, in just the
same way that evolution has programmed animals to survive.  No
consciousness is necessary(yet), just a goal and a means to that goal.
It should be noted that the means of continuing survival available to
the space shuttle computers are very minimal right now, but even
animals must draw upon a limited set of defenses in order to survive.

        The successes in AI so far have been in very restricted areas,
to say the least.  Certain well-understood human abilities have been
simulated on computers.  Where the ability is less understood, like
that of a chess master, the simulation breaks down.  Where something
such as 'survival' may be understood, I challenge anyone to come up
with a generalized theory of 'feelings.'

        A final point: whenever we understand something, it loses its
magical properties for us.  If, for example, we observe the complex
behavior of some program, we may be amazed.  When we look at the
sources and see how it works, however, we will probably feel that
there really is no magic there, and that we could have written the
program ourselves.  The same could be true of parts of the mind
which we understand.  The simpler facilities, like an instinct to
survive may seem obvious, while others, such as the feeling of love
may yet seem mystical.  Maybe someday we will come to understand even
that and be able to program it into computers.

                        Ultimately Yours,
                                Joseph J. Mankoski ***PSI***
                                {decvax!genrad, allegra, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!psi
                                psi@mit-ai.ARPA

        In the fullness of time even parallel lines will meet.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 86 20:43:57 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!umcp-cs!venu@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Venugopala
      R. Dasigi)
Subject: Re: Computer Dialogue

In article <1439@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> psi@mit-eddie.UUCP writes:
>thing that can be simulated on a computer.  The space shuttle
>computers could be thought of as programmed to survive, in just the
>same way that evolution has programmed animals to survive.  No
>consciousness is necessary(yet), just a goal and a means to that goal.
>It should be noted that the means of continuing survival available to
>the space shuttle computers are very minimal right now, but even
>animals must draw upon a limited set of defenses in order to survive.

To me it appears that the ability to dynamically redefine the goal in a
context-sensitive manner is also an important characteristic of the
"survival instinct". While animals seem to have this ability, programming
this ability into computers (in the same sense as in the case of animals) is
perhaps very difficult.

--- Venu
Venugopala Rao Dasigi
UUCP   : {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!venu
CSNet  : venu@umcp-cs
ARPA   : venu@mimsy.umd.edu
US Mail: Dept. of CS, Univ. of Maryland, College Park MD 20742.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 86 03:15:06 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!rochester
      !rocksanne!sunybcs!ellie!colonel@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: survival instinct

It depends on what you mean by "wanted." Even rocks are programmed to
survive--they're hard.  (The soft ones become dirt: survival of the fittest!)


        "This rock, for instance, has an I.Q. of zero.  Ouch!"
        "What's the matter, Professor?"
        "It bit me!"

Col. G. L. Sicherman
UU: ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel
CS: colonel@buffalo-cs
BI: csdsicher@sunyabva

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 86 13:51:18 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hounx!kort@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (B.KORT)
Subject: Re: Computer Dialogue

Joseph Mankoski writes a thought provoking article on whether
survival logic in NASA computers has any connection to human
survival instincts wired into to our brains from birth.

I have been pondering this question myself.  It seems to me
that I have some autonomic responses to threat situations
which appeear to be wired-in instincts.  I note that I don't rely
on them often.  Most times, I rely on learned behavior to handle
situations which might have called for fight/flight/freeze if
I were living as a hunter-gatherer on the Savannahs some 20,000
years ago.

Joseph asks for a theory of feelings.  As it happens, I just wrote
a brief article on the subject, which may or may not be suitable
for publication after editorial comment and revision.  Just for
the hell of it, let me append the article and solicit comments
from netters interested in this topic.



==================== Article on Feelings ========================



       A Simplified Model of the Effects of Perceived Aggression
                        in the Work Environment

                                Barry Kort

                              Copyright 1986

       Introduction

       The work environment offers a mix of personalities.  In this
       paper, I would like to examine the effects of one dimension
       along which personalities are perceived to differ, and trace
       the consequential effects.  I would like to focus attention
       on the dimension

       aggressive...assertive...politic...nonassertive...nonaggressive.

       The effects that I wish to investigate are not the
       behavioral responses, but the more fundamental internal body
       sensations or somatic reactions which lie behind the
       subsequent behavioral response.  The goal of this
       investigation is to discover the biological roots of somatic
       reactions to stressors in the work environment, and develop
       a useful model of the underlying dynamics.  I make no claims
       that the model constructed here is complete or
       comprehensive.  To do so is beyond my ken.  Rather, I have
       attempted to construct a first crude model, which despite
       it's simplicity, can be advantageously applied to ameliorate
       a few of the ills that we encounter in the work environment.

       A Model of Nature of Aggressive Behavior

       It has been said that civilization is a thin veneer.
       Underneath our legacy of some 5000 years of civilization
       lies our evolutionary past.  Deep within the human brain one
       can find the vestiges of our animal nature-the old mammalian
       brain, the old reptilian brain.  Of principal interest here
       are two groups of structures responsible for much of our
       "wired-in" instincts.

       The cerebellum is responsible for much of our risk-taking,
       self-gratifying drives, including the aggressive sex drives.
       It is the cerebellum that says, "Go for it!  This could be
       exciting!  Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead."

       The limbic system, on the other hand, is responsible for
       self-protective behaviors.  The limbic system perceives the
       threats to one's safety or well-being, and initiates
       protective or counter measures.  The limbic system says,
       "Hold it!  This could be dangerous!  We'd better go slow and
       avoid those torpedoes."

       Rising above it all resides the neocortex or cerebrum.  This
       is the "new brain" of homo sapiens which is the seat of
       learning and intelligence.  It is the part that gains
       knowledge of cause and effect patterns, and overrules the
       myopic attitude of the cerebellum and limbic system.
       Occasionally, the cerebral cortex is faced with a novel
       situation, where past experience and learning fail to
       provide adequate instruction in how to proceed.  In that
       case, the usual patterns of regulation are ineffective,
       and the behavioral response may revert back to the more
       primitive instincts.

       Whether or not the cerebral cortex carries the day, the
       messages of the cerebellum and limbic system ricochet
       through the nervous system, leaving their signature here and
       there.  In the next section, we explore how these messages
       manifest themselves in somatic sensations, commonly known as
       feelings.

       Somatic Reactions to Stress

       When an individual is presented with an unusual situation,
       the lack of an immediately obvious method of dealing with it
       may lead to an accumulation of stress which manifests itself
       somatically.  For instance, first-time jitters may show up
       as a knotting of the stomach (butterflies), signaling fear
       (of failure).  A perceived threat may cause increased heart
       rate, sweating, or a tightening of the skin on the back of
       the neck.  (This latter phenomenon is commonly known as
       "raising of one's hackles," which in birds, causes the
       feathers to stand up in display mode, warning off the
       threatening invader.) Teeth clenching, which comes from
       repressing the urge to express anger, leads to a common
       affliction among adult males-temporal mandibular joint
       (TMJ).  Leg shaking and pacing indicate a subliminal urge to
       flee, while cold feet corresponds to frozen terror (playing
       'possum).  All of these are variations on the
       fight/flight/freeze instincts mediated by the limbic system.
       They often occur without our conscious awareness.  Another
       reaction is migraine headaches which arise when one is vexed
       by the situation at hand, and is searching without success
       for a rational solution.  A person's awareness of and
       sensitivity to such somatic feelings may affect his mode of
       expression.  The somasthetic cortex is the portion of the
       brain where the body stresses are registered, and this
       sensation may be the primary indication that a stressor is
       present in the environment.  A challenge for every
       individual is to accurately identify which environmental
       stimulus is linked to which somatic response.

       Somatic responses such as those outlined above are
       intimately connected with our expressed feelings, which
       usually are translated into some behavioral response along
       the axis from aggressive to assertive to politic to
       nonassertive to nonaggresive.  The challenge is to find and
       effectuate the middle ground between too much communication
       and too little.  The goal of the communication is to
       identify the cause and effect link between the environmental
       stressor and the somatic reaction, and from the somatic
       reaction to the behavioral response.  The challenge is all
       the more difficult because the most effective mode and
       intensity of the communication depends on the maturity of
       the other party.

       Acknowledgements

       The original sources for the ideas assembled in this paper
       are too diffuse to pinpoint with completeness or precision.
       However, I would like to acknowledge the influence of so
       many of my colleagues who took the time to contribute their
       ideas and experiences on the subject matter.  I especially
       would like to thank Dr. John Karlin, Dr. R. Isaac Evan, and
       Dr. Laura Rogers who helped me shape and test the models
       presented here.



=========================================================================


Comments are invited.

--Barry Kort   ...ihnp4!houxm!hounx!kort

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂10-Apr-86  0211	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #74
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Apr 86  01:41:54 PST
Date: Wed  9 Apr 1986 23:04-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #74
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Thursday, 10 Apr 1986      Volume 4 : Issue 74

Today's Topics:
  Policy - Discussion Style & Professional Ethics & Press Releases,
  Programming Languages - LetS Lisp Loop Notation

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu,  3 Apr 86 11:52:18 GMT
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Less on IQ tests for Computers, more on Editorial Policy?

Scott Preece asks in Vol 4 # 66 :-

``Do we really want this list to be a battleground for unsubstantiated
personal opinions on the potential for machine intelligence?'' Agreed
that this a moderated digest, it is interesting to note that the net.ai
forum is currently carrying a discussion of the cognitive (and emotional)
abilities of an arbitrarily large number of toasters. Here is an example:-

> In article <2345@jhunix.UUCP> ins←akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> >You are actually quite correct.  There's one problem here.  Toasters can
> >store perhaps two or three bytes of information.  Consider how many
> >toasters would be required to be as complex as a human brain.
> >
> >And as for the future toasters, toasters' primary function is to affect
> >items of a definite physical size (toast).
> >--
> >Kenneth Arromdee
>
> Gee, I always thought that toasters' primary function was to affect
> items of a definite physical size (bread).
> --
>
> When you meet a master swordsman,
> show him your sword.
> When you meet a man who is not a poet,
> do not show him your poem.
>                      - Rinzai, ninth century zen master
>
> --Nathan Hess
> uucp: {allegra, ihnp4}!psuvax1!gondor!hess
> csnet:  hess@penn-state.CSNET
> Bitnet:  HESS@PSUVAXG.BITNET

I would also like to extract this from the List←of←Lists :-

>  Contributions may be anything from tutorials to rampant speculation.  In
>  particular, the following are sought:
>      Abstracts                        Reviews
>     Lab Descriptions                 Research Overviews
>     Work Planned or in Progress      Half-Baked Ideas
>     Conference Announcements         Conference Reports
>     Bibliographies                   History of AI
>     Puzzles and Unsolved Problems    Anecdotes, Jokes, and Poems
>     Queries and Requests             Address Changes (Bindings)

The poetry of Rinzai is illuminating, cf Vol 4 # 50,53, and very apt.

Gordon Joly
ARPA: gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj

  [I am unable to follow the logic of this message, but find it
  easier (and faster!) to let it pass than to engage in editorial
  debate with Gordon.  Contributors should note that it is they,
  not I, who control the quality of AIList.  My thanks to you
  all; keep up the good work.  -- KIL]

------------------------------

Date: Fri,  4 Apr 86 12:53:55 GMT
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: World Times, April 1, 2284.

A  special analysis of the entries in the  AI Digests of the
mid 1980's  has shown that all  the entries written by  "The
Joka" were the products of an automated intelligent system.
This  result is regarded by some as an  interesting twist on
the Turing test.

Other News.

Today the World's first trial by computer was held. The jury
consisted of 12 independent intelligent systems and they sat
at the World Court in the U.N.  The jury returned it's first
verdict after a few seconds,  and the judge commented on the
impartiality of the jurors, unclouded by any emotion or form
of prejudice. On trial was the off-world outlaw, Roy Baty...

Reporter : PiQuan.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 86 9:38:45 CST
From: Glenn Veach <veach%ukans.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Professional ethics.

Over the past several months I have been receiving the AIList, and
I must take this time to express some concerns of mine.  I have seen
several "policy notices" and debates raging where the authors have
lowered themselves to the level of the "ad homina"(sp?) attack.
One should have more substantive comments if one wishes to express
criticism, and not resort to personal attacks.

I am in no way opposed to healthy debate, even if it should become
heated.  However, there seems to be some dislike, on the part of many,
of pointed criticism.  I wish to admonish those who take part in
this medium of intellectual exchange to express a little more common
courtesy and professional ethic, if indeed either of these still
remain.  Let's drop the name-calling.

I personally welcome criticism of AI, even if it (the criticism) may
be in left field.  After all, many think we are in left field, while
we may hold that they are in left field.  So, exactly where is left
field? Perhaps it is dependent on ones own position?  Also, we should
remember that this is a monitored digest.  I personally trust the
discretion of Ken, who I think does a good job, to weed out any
inappropriate notices.  Thus, I would love to see this list continue
to announce various product and research development, whether it be
presented by a party directly involved in the development or someone
farther removed.  As long as it is not out and out advertisement, I,
as well as others (I think), am interested in such postings.

Enough for now...

Glenn O. Veach
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
Department of Computer Science
University of Kansas
Lawrence, KS 66045-2192
(913) 864-4482
veach%ukans.csnet@csnet-relay.csnet

------------------------------

Date: Wed 9 Apr 86 10:50:34-PST
From: Pat Hayes <PHayes@SRI-KL>
Subject: Re: AIList Digest V4 #70

Part of this AIlist reads perilously like an advertisement, even though it is
protected by Les Earnest's mention.  Do we have to have whole 'product
descriptions' ( ie advertising brochures ) put out over the net? Isn't that
( just slightly ) illegal?
Pat Hayes

------------------------------

Date: Sun 16 Mar 86 22:01:03-PST
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Policy - Press Releases

A press release typically contains factual information; the cost of
transmitting it is small.  Is it not always in the government's
interest for me to pass on the information to those who may need it
rather than to censor it (to avoid annoying those who don't)?

Early net organizers were no doubt [rightly] worried about corporate
PR departments broadcasting unwanted press releases to everyone on
the net.  The situation has changed.  A press release judged appropriate
for a narrow-topic discussion list by its moderator is unlikely to
offend many (other than self-appointed censors) or to seriously
waste the time of the list members.  It will not mislead readers so long
as it is clearly marked as a commercial message.  The inherent bias of
such messages is mitigated by the opportunity for immediate rebuttal
and for submission of equally biased messages supporting other views.
Any resulting controversy sparks interest and keeps the list active.
Outright flaming or numbing repetition can be prevented by the moderator.
If the moderator fails to intervene, comments from disgruntled readers
will fill his (or her) mailbox and eventually become a metadiscussion
within the list itself.  Readers who get tired of all this can drop out.

My view is that policy on commercial content (hardware hype, job ads,
prices, whatever) within a discussion list should be set by the
moderator and the list members -- not by conventions required for
unmoderated message streams.  The Arpanet administrators and host
administrators will always hold the trump, of course; they can refuse
to support any list that violates >>their<< standards.

                                        -- Ken Laws

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1986  15:56 EST
From: Dick@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: LetS -- a new Lisp loop notation

           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


  This message advertises a Common Lisp macro package called LetS (rhymes with
process) which it is hoped will become a standard iteration facility in Common
Lisp.  LetS makes it possible to write a wide class of algorithms which are
typically written as loops in a functional style which is similar to
expressions written with the Common Lisp sequence functions.  LetS supports a
number of features which make LetS expressions more expressive than sequence
expressions.  However, the key feature of LetS is that every LetS expression is
automatically transformed into an efficient iterative loop.  As a result,
unlike sequence expressions, LetS expressions are just as efficient as the
traditional loop expressions they replace.
  An experimental version of LetS currently exists on the MIT-AI machine in the
file "DICK;LETS BIN".  Although LetS is written in Common Lisp, it has not yet
been tested on anything other than a Symbolics Lisp Machine.   For various
detailed reasons it is unlikely to run on any other machine.  Everyone who
wants to is invited to borrow this file and try LetS out.  I am very
interested to hear any and all comments on LetS.
  Extensive documentation of LetS is in the file "DICK;LETSD >" also on the
MIT-AI machine.  Even people who do not have a Lisp Machine or are not able
to access the code are invited to read this documentation and make comments on
it.  I am interested in getting as wide a feedback as possible.  If you cannot
access the documentation file directly, send me your US mail address and I will
mail you a copy.  The documentation is much too long to reliably send via
computer mail.
  After an initial testing and feedback period, a final version of LetS which
runs under all Common Lisps will be created along with formal documentation.
This should happen within a couple of months.
  A very brief summary of lets is included at the end of this message.

                                                Dick Waters


  The advantages (with respect to conciseness, readability, verifiability and
maintainability) of programs written in a functional style are well known.  A
simple example of the clarity of the functional style is provided by the
Common Lisp program below.  This function computes the sum of the positive
elements of a vector.

(defun sum-pos-vect (v)
  (reduce #'+ (remove-if-not #'plusp v)))

  A key feature of sum-pos-vect is that it makes use of an intermediate
aggregate data structure (a sequence) to represent the selected set of vector
elements.  The use of sequences as intermediate quantities in computations
makes it possible to use functional composition to express a wide variety of
computations which are usually represented as loops.  Unfortunately, as
typically implemented, sequence expressions are extremely inefficient.
  The problem is that straightforward evaluation of a sequence expression
requires the actual creation of the intermediate sequence objects.  Since
alternate algorithms using loops can often compute the same result without
creating any intermediate sequences, the overhead engendered by using sequence
expressions is quite reasonably regarded as unacceptable in many situations.
  A solution to the problem of the inefficiency of sequence expressions is to
transform them into iterative loops which do not actually create any
intermediate sequences before executing them.  For example, sum-pos-vect might
be transformed as shown below.

(defun sum-pos-vect-transformed (v)
  (prog (index last sum element)
        (setq index 0)
        (setq last (length v))
        (setq sum 0)
      L (if (not (< index last)) (return sum))
        (setq element (aref v index))
        (if (plusp element) (setq sum (+ element sum)))
        (setq index (1+ index))
        (go L)))

  Several researchers have investigated the automatic transformation of
sequence expressions into loops.  For example, APL compilers transform many
kinds of sequence expressions into loops.
  Unfortunately, there is a fundamental problem with the transformation of
sequence expressions into loops.  Although many sequence expressions can be
transformed, many cannot.  For example, Common Lisp provides a sequence
function (reverse) which reverses the elements in a sequence.  Suppose that a
sequence expression enumerates a sequence, reverses it, and then reduces it to
some value.  This sequence expression cannot be computed without using
intermediate storage for the enumerated sequence because the first element of
the reversed sequence is taken from the last element of the enumerated
sequence.  There is no way to transform the sequence expression into an
efficient loop without eliminating the reverse operation.
  A solution to the problems caused by the presence of non-transformable
sequence operations is to restrict the kinds of sequence operations which
are allowed so that every sequence expression is guaranteed to be
transformable.  For example, one could start by outlawing the operation
reverse.
!
                                     LETS

  LetS supports a wide class of sequence expressions that are all guaranteed
to be transformable into efficient loops.  In order to avoid confusion with
the standard Common Lisp data type sequence, the data type supported by LetS
is called a series.
  Using LetS the program sum-pos-vect would be rendered as shown below.  The
function Evector converts the vector v into a series which contains the same
elements in the same order.  The function Tplusp is analogous to
(remove-if-not #'plusp ...) except that it operates on a series.  The function
Rsum corresponds to (reduce #'+ ... :initial-value 0) except that it takes in
a series as its argument.

(defun sum-pos-vect-lets (v)
  (Rsum (Tplusp (Evector v))))

  LetS automatically transforms the body of this program as shown below.  The
readability of the transformed code is reduced by the fact that it contains a
large number of gensymed variables.  However, the code is quite efficient.
The only significant problem is that too many variables are used.  (For
example, the variable #:vector5 is unnecessary.)  However, this problem need
not lead to inefficiency during execution as long as a compiler which is
capable of simple optimizations is available.

(defun sum-pos-vect-lets-transformed (v)
  (let (#:index12 #:last4 #:sum21 #:element11 #:vector5)
    (tagbody (setq #:vector5 v)
             (setq #:index12 0)
             (setq #:last4 (length #:vector5))
             (setq #:sum21 0)
        #:p0 (if (not (< #:index12 #:last4)) (go #:e9))
             (setq #:index12 (1+ #:index12))
             (setq #:element11 (aref #:vector5 #:index12))
             (if (not (plusp #:element11)) (go #:p0))
             (setq #:sum21 (+ #:element11 #:sum21))
             (go #:p0)
        #:e9)
    #:sum21))

                        RESTRICTIONS ENFORCED BY LETS

  The key aspect of LetS is that it enforces a palatable (and not overly
strict) set of easily understandable restrictions which guarantee that every
series expression can be transformed into a highly efficient loop.  This
allows programmers to write series expressions which are much easier to work
with than the loops they might otherwise write, without suffering a decrease
in efficiency.
  There are two central restrictions which are enforced by LetS.  First, every
series must be statically identifiable so that transformation can occur at
compile time rather than at run time.  Second every series function is
required to be "in-order".  A series function is said to be in-order if it
reads each input series in order, one element at a time, starting from the
first one, and if it creates the output series (if any) in order, one element
at a time, starting from the first one.  In addition, the function must do
this without using internal storage for more than one element at a time for
each of the input and output series.  For example, the series functions
Evector, Tplusp, and Rsum are all in-order.  In contrast, the function reverse
is not in-order.  (Reverse either has to read the input in reverse order, or
save up the elements until the last one is read in.)
!
                          OTHER FEATURES OF LETS

  Although efficiency is the main goal of LetS, LetS supports a number of
features which are not directly related to efficiency per se.  Most notable of
these is implicit mapping of functions over series.  Whenever an ordinary Lisp
function is syntactically applied to a series, it is automatically mapped over
the elements of the series.
  The following example illustrates implicit mapping.  In the function below,
the computation "(lambda (x) (expt (abs x) 3))" is implicitly mapped over the
series of numbers generated by Evector.  Implicit mapping of this sort is a
commonly used feature of APL and is extremely convenient.

(defun sum-cube-abs-vect (v)
  (Rsum (expt (abs (Evector v)) 3)))

(sum-cube-abs-vect #(1 -2 3)) => (+ 1 8 27) => 36

  New series functions can be defined by using the form defunS.  The following
example shows how the function Rsum could be defined.  More complex forms can
be defined by using the ordinary Common Lisp macro definition facilities to
define macros which create appropriate series expressions.

(defunS Rsum (numbers)
    (declare (series numbers))
  (reduceS #'+ 0 numbers))

  LetS provides two forms (LetS and LetS*) which are analogous to let and
let*.  As shown in the example below, These forms can be used to bind both
ordinary variables (e.g., num-obs, mean, and deviation) and series variables
(e.g., ob).  Whether or not a variable is a series is determined
by looking at the type of value produced by the expression which computes
the value bound to it.

(defun mean-and-deviation (observations)
  (letS* ((ob (Elist observations))
          (num-obs (Rlength ob))
          (mean (/ (Rsum ob) num-obs))
          (deviation (- (/ (Rsum (expt ob 2)) num-obs) (expt mean 2))))
    (list mean deviation)))

  The complete documentation of LetS compares LetS with the Common Lisp
sequence functions and with the Zeta Lisp Loop macro.  LetS supports
essentially all of the functionality of the Loop macro in a style which looks
like sequence functions and which is exactly as efficient as the loop macro.

                           THE ANCESTRY OF LETS

  The LetS package described here is descended from an earlier package of the
same name (See MIT/AIM-680a and "Expressional Loops", Proc. Eleventh ACM
SIGACT-SIGPLAN Symposium on the Principles of Programming Languages, January
1984).  The current system differs from the earlier system in a number of
ways.  In particular, the new system supports a much wider set of features.

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂10-Apr-86  0441	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #75
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Apr 86  04:39:02 PST
Date: Wed  9 Apr 1986 23:23-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #75
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Thursday, 10 Apr 1986      Volume 4 : Issue 75

Today's Topics:
  Games - Game-Playing Programs,
  Philosophy - Computer Consciousness & Wittgenstein and NL &
    Reply to Lucas on Formal Systems

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Apr 86 11:54:48 -0500
From: lkramer@dewey.udel.EDU
Subject: Game-Playing Programs

Re: Allen Sherzer's request for information of AI game-playing
    programs.
I wrote a program last year for an expert systems course that plays
the card game Spades.  (ESP -- Expert Spades Player) It is implemented
as a frame-based expert system written in minifrl (my revision of the
frame primitives in Winston and Horn's Lisp) on top of Franz.  The pro-
gram is fairly simple-minded in that it doesn't learn from its mistakes
or deal well with novel situations, but it still is able to play a fairly
good game of Spades.
  In addition, since it is written as an expert system, its rule-base is
easily modifiable.

Mostow has written a (much more sophisticated) program that plays Hearts
and is able to operationalize from fairly general advice.
  --1983, Mostow, D.J., Machine transformation of advice into a heuristic
          search procedure.  In R.S. Michalski, J. Carbonell, and T. M.
          Mitchell, eds., Machine learning: An artificial Intelligence
          Approach.  Tioga Press.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 86 08:55:00 EST
From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
Reply-to: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
Subject: computer consciousness


Thought I'd jump in here with a few points.

1. There's a metaphilosophers (don't ask me why the "meta") mailing
list where folks thrash on about this stuff constantly, so if you
care, listen in.  Tune in to: MetaPhilosophers%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.

2. There's a common problem with confusing epistemological questions
(what would constitute evidence for computer consciousness) and
ontological ones (so, is it *really* conscious).  Those who
subscribe to various verificationist fallacies are especially
vulnerable, and indeed may argue that there is ultimately
no distinction.  The point is debatable, obviously, but we
shouldn't just *assume* that the latter question (is it *really*
conscious) is meaningless unless tied to an operational definition.
After all, conscious experience is the classic case of a
*private* phenomenon (ie, no one else can directly "look" at your
experiences).  If this means that consciousness fails a
verificationist criterion of meaningfulness, so much the worse
for verificationism.

3. Taking up the epistemological problem for the moment, it
isn't as obvious as many assume that even the most sophisticated
computer performance would constitute *decisive* evidence for
consciousness.  Briefly, we believe other people are conscious
for TWO reasons: 1) they are capable of certain clever activities,
like holding English conversations in real-time, and 2) they
have brains, just like us, and each of us knows darn well that
he/she is conscious.  Clearly the brain causes/supports
consciousness and external performance in ways we don't
understand.  A conversational computer does *not* have a brain;
and so one of the two reasons we have for attributing
consciousness to others does not hold.

Analogy: suppose you know that cars can move, that they all have
X-type-engines, and that there's something called combustion
which depends on X-type-engines and which is instrumental in getting
the cars to move.  Let's say you have a combustion-detector
which you tried out on one car and, sure enough, it had it, but
then you dropped your detector and broke it. You're still pretty
confident that the other cars have combustion.  Now you see a
very different type of vehicle which can move, but which does
NOT have an X-type-engine - in fact you're not too sure whether
it's really an engine at all.  Now, is it just obvious that this
other vehicle has combustion??  Don't we need to know a) a good
definition of combustion, b) some details as to how X-type-engines
and combustion are related? c) some details as to how motion
depends on combustion, d) in what respects the new "engine"
resembles/differs from X-type-engines, etc etc.?  The point is
that motion (performance) isn't *decisive* evidence for combustion
(consciousness) in the absence of an X-type-engine (brain).

John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>

------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 86 08:58:24 GMT
From: amdcad!cae780!leadsv!rtgvax!ramin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Pantagruel)
Subject: Natural Language processing


An issue that has propped up now and again through my studies has been
the relation between current Natural Language/Linguistic research and
the works of Ludwig Wittgenstein (especially through the whole Vienna
School mess and later in his writings in "Philosophical Investigations").

It appears to me (in observing trends in such theories) and especially
after the big hoopla over Frames that AI/Cognitive Research has spent
the past 30 years experimenting through "Tractatus" and has just now warmed
up to "P.I." The works of the Vienna School's context-free language analyses
earlier in this century seems quite parallel to early context-free language
parsing efforts.

The later studies in P.I. with regards to the role of Natural Context and
the whole Picture-Theory rot seems to have been a direct result of the
failure of the context-free approach. Quite a few objections voiced nowadays
by researchers on the futility of context-free analysis seems to be very
similar to the early chapters in P.I.

I still haven't gone through Wittgenstein with a fine enough comb as I
would like... especially this latter batch of his notes that I saw
a few weeks ago finally published and available publicly... But I still
think there is quite a bit of merit to this fellow's study of language
and cognition.

Any opinions on this...? Any references to works to the contrary?

I must be fair in warning that I hold Wittgensteins' works to contain
the answers to some of the biggest issues facing us now... Personally, I'm
holding out for someone to come up with some relevant questions...
I think Bertrand Russell was correct in assessing L.W.'s significance...

Please mail back to me for a livelier dialogue... The Net seems rather
hostile nowadays... (but post to net if you think it merits a public forum)...



"Pantagruel at his most vulgar..."

=                                      =                                     =
Alias: ramin firoozye                  |   USps: Systems Control Inc.
uucp:  ...!shasta \                    |         1801 Page Mill Road
       ...!lll-lcc \                   |         Palo Alto, CA  94303
       ...!ihnp4    \...!ramin@rtgvax  |   ↑G:   (415) 494-1165 x-1777
=                                      =                                     =

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 86 13:34:54 est
From: Stanley Letovsky <letovsky@YALE.ARPA>
Subject: Reply to Lucas


      At  the conference on "AI an the Human Mind" held at Yale early in
March 1986, a paper was presented  by  the  British  mathematician  John
Lucas.   He  claimed  that AI could never succeed, that a machine was in
principle incapable of doing all that a mind can do.  His argument  went
like  this.  Any computing machine is essentially equivalent to a system
of formal logic.  The famous Godel incompleteness theorem shows that for
any  formal  system  powerful enough to be interesting, there are truths
which cannot be proved in that system.   Since  a  person  can  see  and
recognize  these truths, the person can transcend the limitations of the
formal system.  Since this is true of any formal system at all, a person
can  always  transcend  a  formal  system, therefore a formal system can
never be a model of a person.  Lucas has apparently  been  pushing  this
argument for several decades.

      Marvin  Minsky  gave  the  rebuttal  to  this; he said that formal
systems had nothing to do with AI or  the  mind,  since  formal  systems
required perfect consistency, whereas what AI required was machines that
make mistakes, that guess, that learn and evolve.  I was  less  sure  of
that  refutation;  although  I  agreed  with  Minsky, I was worried that
because the algorithms for doing all  that  guessing  and  learning  and
mistake  making  would  run  on  a  computer, there was still a level of
description at which the AI model must look  like  a  consistent  formal
system.   This  is  equivalent  to the statement that your theory of the
mind is a consistent theory.  I was worried that Lucas could revive  his
argument  at  that  level, and I wanted a convincing refutation.  I have
found one, which I will now present.

      First, we need to  clarify  the  relationship  between  a  running
computer  program  and  a  system  of  formal logic.  A running computer
program is a dynamic object, it has a history composed of  a  succession
of  states  of  the machine.  A formal system, by contrast, is timeless:
it has some defining axioms and rules  of  inference,  and  a  space  of
theorems  and  nontheorems implicitly defined by those axioms and rules.
For a formal system to model a dynamic process, it must describe in  its
timeless  manner  the  temporal behavior or history of the process.  The
axioms of the formal system, therefore, will contain a  time  parameter.
They might look something like this:

         if the process is in a state of type A at time t1,
            it will be in a state of type B in the next instant.

      A more complicated problem is  how  the  interaction  between  the
computer  program  and  the  outside  world is to be modelled within the
formal system.  You cannot simulate input and output by adding axioms to
the  formal  system, because changing the axioms changes the identity of
the system.  Moreover, input and output are events in the domain of  the
running  program;  within  the  formal  system  they  are just axioms or
theorems which assert that such  and  such  an  input  or  output  event
occurred at such and such a time.  The ideal solution to this problem is
to include within the formal system a theory of the physics of the world
as  well as a theory of the mind.  This means that you can't construct a
theory of the mind until you have a theory of the rest of the  universe,
which seems like a harsh restriction.  Of course, the theory of the rest
of the universe need not be  correct  or  very  detailed;  an  extremely
impoverished  theory  would  simply be a set of assertions about sensory
data received at various instants.  Alternatively, you could ignore  I/O
completely  and  just concern yourself with a model of isolated thought;
if we debunk Lucas' argument for this case we can leave  it  to  him  to
decide  whether  to  retreat  to  the  high  ground of embodied thinking
machines.  Therefore I will ignore the I/O issue.

      The next point concerns the type of program that an  AI  model  of
the  mind is likely to be.  Again, ignoring sensory and motor processing
and special purpose subsystems like visual imagery or  solid  modelling,
we  will  consider a simple model of the mind as a process whose task is
belief fixation.  That is, the job of the mind is to maintain a  set  of
beliefs  about  the  world,  using  some  kind  of  abductive  inference
procedure:  generate a bunch of hypotheses, evaluate  their  credibility
and  consistency using a variety of heuristic rules of evidence, and, on
occasion, commit to believe a particular hypothesis.

      It is important to understand that the set of  beliefs  maintained
by  this  program need not be consistent with each other.  If we use the
notation
                   believes(Proposition,Instant)
to denote the fact that the system believes a particular proposition  at
some instant, it is perfectly acceptable to have both
                    believes(p,i)
and
                    believes(not(p),i)
be theorems of the formal system which describes the program's behavior.
The formal system must be a consistent description of  the  behavior  of
the  program,  or we do not have a coherent theory.  The behavior of the
program must match Lucas' (or some other person's) behavior or we do not
have  a  correct  theory.  However the beliefs maintained by the program
need not be a consistent theory of anything,  unless  Lucas  happens  to
have some consistent beliefs about something.

      For  those  more  comfortable  with  technical  jargon, the formal
system has a meta-level and an object level.  The object level describes
Lucas  beliefs  and is not necessarily consistent; the meta-level is our
theory of Lucas' belief fixation process and had better  be  consistent.
The  object level is embedded in the meta-level using the modal operator
"believes".

      What would it mean to formulate a Godel sentence for this  system?
To  begin  with,  we  seem to have a choice about where to formulate the
Godel sentence:  at the object level or the meta level.   Formulating  a
Godel  sentence  for  the  object  level,  that  is, the level of Lucas'
beliefs, is clearly a  waste  of  time,  however.   This  level  is  not
required  to be consistent, and so Godel's trick of forcing us to choose
between consistency and completeness fails:  we  have  already  rejected
consistency.

      The  more serious problem concerns a Godel sentence formulated for
the meta-level, which must be consistent.  The general form of  a  Godel
sentence is
                  G: not(provable(G))
where  "provable"  is  a  predicate  which  you embed in the system in a
clever way, and which captures the  notion  of  provability  within  the
system.   The  meaning  of  such  a  sentence is "This sentence is not a
theorem", and therein lies the Godelian dilemma:   if  the  sentence  is
true,  the  system  is  incomplete  because  not all statable truths are
theorems.  If the sentence is false, then the  system  is  inconsistent,
because  G  is  both  true  and  false.   This  dilemma  holds  for  all
"sufficiently powerful" systems, and we assume that our model  of  Lucas
falls  into this category, and that one can therefore write down a Godel
sentence for the model.

      What is critical to realize, however, is that the  Godel  sentence
for our model of Lucas is not a belief of Lucas' according to the model.
The form of the Godel sentence
                  G: not(provable(G))
is syntactically distinct from the form of  an  assertion  about  Lucas'
beliefs,
                     believes(p,t)
Nothing stops us from having
                     believes(G,t)
be  provable  in  the  system,  despite  the  fact  that G is not itself
provable in the system.  (Actually,  the  last  sentence  is  incorrect,
since  it  is  illegal  to  put  G  inside  the  scope of the "believes"
operator.  G is a meta-level sentence, and only object  level  sentences
are  permitted  inside  "believes".  The object level and the meta level
are not allowed to share any symbols.  If you want to talk about Lucas's
beliefs  about the model of himself, you will have to embed Lucas' model
of the model of himself at the object level,  but  we  can  ignore  this
technicality.)

      This point is crucial:  the Godel sentence for our theory of Lucas
as  a  belief-fixing  machine  is not a theorem ascribing any beliefs to
Lucas.  Therefore the fact that Lucas can arrive at a  belief  that  the
Godel  sentence  is  true is perfectly compatible with the fact that the
system cannot prove G as a theorem.   Lucas'  argument  depends  on  the
claim  that  if he believes G, he transcends the formal system:  this is
his mistake.  Lucas can believe whatever he wants about  what  sentences
can  or  can't  be proved within the model of himself.  The only way his
beliefs have any bearing on the correctness of the model is if the model
predicts  that  Lucas  will  believe something he doesn't, or disbelieve
something he believes.  In other words, the usual  criteria  of  science
apply to judging the correctness of the model, and no Godelian sophistry
can invalidate the model a priori.

      Lucas' argument has a certain surface  plausibility  to  it.   Its
strength seems to depend on the unwarranted assumption that the theorems
of the formal system correspond directly to  the  beliefs  of  the  mind
being  modelled  by  that  system.   This  is  a  naive  and  completely
fallacious assumption:  it ignores the  fact  that  minds  are  temporal
processes,  and  that  they are capable of holding inconsistent beliefs.
When these issues are taken into account, Lucas' argument falls flat.

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂10-Apr-86  2132	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #76
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Apr 86  21:32:02 PST
Date: Wed  9 Apr 1986 23:36-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #76
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest           Thursday, 10 Apr 1986      Volume 4 : Issue 76

Today's Topics:
  Seminars - NL Interfaces to Expert Systems (Villanova) &
    Minsky (SIU-Edwardsville) &
    Frames and Objects in Modeling and Simulation (SU) &
    Machine Inductive Inference (UPenn) &
    Conditionals and Inheritance (CMU) &
    Knowledge Retrieval as Specialized Inference (CMU) &
    Ontology and Efficiency in a Belief Reasoner (UPenn) &
    Probabilistic Inference: Theory and Practice (SMU),
  Conference - Southern California AI Conference Program

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 4 Apr 86 13:09 EST
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - NL Interfaces to Expert Systems (Villanova)

I got an announcement in the mail this week about the first meeting of the
DELAWARE VALLEY AI ASSOCIATION.  It will be held at Villanova University
(Tolentine Hall, room 215) on April 21st at 7:30pm.  The meeting will
discuss the organizational structure of the association, introduce the
current officers, and feature a talk by Bonnie Webber on "Natural Language
Interfaces to Expert Systems".


DIRECTIONS: from rt. 320 North turn right onto route 30.  At the first
light, turn right into the parking lot.  Walk across route 30 and proceed
along the walkway towards the chapel.  Turn left at the Chapel to Tolentine
Hall, which is about 50 yards to the right.

For more information, call 215-265-1980.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 1986 13:30-EST
From: ISAACSON@USC-ISI.ARPA
Subject: Seminar - Minsky (SIU-Edwardsville)


Marvin Minsky will be in the St. Louis area on Tuesday and Wednesday,
April 22, 23.  He'll give a talk at Southern Illinois University at
Edwardsville on:

                         THE SOCIETY OF MIND

                       Science Labs Bldg., Room 1105
                        Tuesday, 7:30 pm
                          April 22, 1986

Admission is free and people in the St. Louis area are welcome.

------------------------------

Date: Tue 8 Apr 86 16:27:21-PST
From: Christine Pasley <pasley@SRI-KL>
Subject: Seminar - Frames and Objects in Modeling and Simulation (SU)


                CS529 - AI In Design & Manufacturing
                Instructor: Dr. J. M. Tenenbaum

Title:          Frames and Objects: Application to Modeling And Simulation
Speaker:        Richard Fikes and Marilyn Stelzner
From:           Intellicorp
Date:           Wednesday, April 9, 1986
Time:           4:00 - 5:30
Place:          Terman 556

We will describe the characteristic features of frame-based knowledge
representation facilities and indicated how they can provide a
foundation for a variety of knowledge-system functions. We will focus
on how frames can contribute to a knowledge sytem's reasoning
activities and how they can be used to organize and direct those
activities.  Application to engineering modelling and simulation will
be discussed.


Visitors welcome.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 86 12:00 EST
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - Machine Inductive Inference (UPenn)

Forwarded From: Dale Miller <Dale@UPenn> on Tue  8 Apr 1986 at  8:35


                         UPenn Math-CS Logic Seminar
                  SOME RECENT RESEARCH ON MACHINE INDUCTIVE
                                  INFERENCE
                               Scott Weinstein
                 Tuesday, 8 April 1986, 4:30 - 6:00, 4N30 DRL

The talk will survey some recent (and not so recent) results on the inference
of r.e. sets and first-order structures.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 1986 1416-EST
From: Lydia Defilippo <DEFILIPPO@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Subject: Seminar - Conditionals and Inheritance (CMU)


Speaker:   Rich Thomason
Date:      Thursday, April 17
Time:      3:00 pm
Place:     4605
Topic:     CONDITIONALS AND INHERITANCE

        This talk will provide motivation and an overview of an
NSF-sponsored research project that has recently begun here, involving
David Touretzky, Chuck Cross, Jeff Horty, and Kevin Kelly.  The portion
of the project on which I will concentrate aims at bringing logical work
on conditionals to bear on nonmonotonic reasoning, and in particular on
inheritance theory.

        Some of the background for the theory consists in the need for a
qualitative approach to "belief kinematics" (or knowledge revision, or
database update), as opposed to a quantitative approach such as the
Bayesian one.  The logic of conditionals provides some principles for
such an approach, where the conditionals are interpreted as indicative
expressions of willingness to make belief transitions.

        Although we have many firm intuitions about inheritance in
particular cases, it is difficult to establish a correct general
definition of nonmonotonic inheritance for arbitrary semantic nets.
I will show how a definition of inheritance generates a definition
of validity for simple conditional expressions, and will suggest that
this can be used as a criterion to judge inheritance definitions.
I will present some results relating particular inheritance definitions
to conditional logics.

        These results depend on a kind of ad hoc update procedure for
semantic nets.  I will suggest that a better procedure might be
obtained by considering nets with both monotonic and nonmonotonic
links.

        If time permits, I will develop some analogies between semantic
nets and Gentzen systems or natural deduction.

------------------------------

Date: 8 April 1986 1615-EST
From: Betsy Herk@A.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Seminar - Knowledge Retrieval as Specialized Inference (CMU)

Speaker:        Alan M. Frisch, University of Rochester

Date:           Tuesday, April 22
Time:           3:30 - 5:00
Place:          5409 Wean Hall

Title:          Knowledge retrieval as specialized inference


Artificial intelligence reasoning systems commonly contain a large
corpus of declarative knowledge, called a knowledge base (KB), and
provide facilities with which the system's components can retrieve
this knowledge.

Consistent with the necessity for fast retrieval is the guiding
intuition that a retriever is, at least in simple cases, a pattern
matcher, though in more complex cases it may perform selected
inferences such as property inheritance.

Seemingly at odds with this intuition, the thesis of this talk is that
the entire process of retrieval can be viewed as a form of inference
and hence the KB as a representation, not merely a data structure.  A
retriever makes a limited attempt to prove that a queried sentence is
a logical consequence of the KB.  When constrained by the no-chaining
restriction, inference becomes indistinguishable from pattern-matching.
Imagining the KB divided into quanta, a retriever that respects this
restriction cannot combine two quanta in order to derive a third.

The techniques of model theory are adapted to build non-procedural
specifications of retrievability relations, which determine what
sentences are retrievable from what KB's.  Model-theoretic
specifications are presented for four retrievers, each extending
the capabilities of the previous one.  Each is accompanied by a
rigorous investigation into its properties, and a presentation of
an efficient, terminating algorithm that can be proved to meet the
specification.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 86 15:01 EST
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar - Ontology and Efficiency in a Belief Reasoner (UPenn)

Forwarded From: Bonnie Webber <Bonnie@UPenn>
Forwarded From: Glenda Kent <Glenda@UPenn>


                 ONTOLOGY AND EFFICIENCY IN A BELIEF REASONER

                               Anthony S. Maida
                        Department of Computer Science
                             Penn State University


This   talk   describes  the  implementation  of,  and  theoretical  influences
underlying, a belief reasoner called the  "Belief  Space  Engine."    A  belief
reasoner  is  a  program that reasons about the "beliefs" of other agents.  The
Belief Space Engine uses specialized data structures, called belief spaces,  to
compute  a  certain  class  of  inferences  about  the  beliefs of other agents
efficiently.  Theoretically, the  architecture  is  motivated  by  a  syntactic
simulation  ontology,  which is an alternative to the possible-worlds ontology.
In order to  encode  this  ontology,  a  meta  description  facility  has  been
implemented.

This talk is organized as follows.  First, we explain the semantic difficulties
with belief reasoning that stem from interactions between belief, equality, and
quantification.  Next, we argue for the sufficiency of the syntactic simulation
ontology to address the difficulties we  described.    Then  we  show  how  the
ontology  is  partially  embodied in the Belief Space Engine.  Finally, we show
that the Belief Space Engine is robust in this domain  by  programming  several
examples.


                           Thursday, April 10, 1986
                            Room 216 - Moore School
                               3:00 - 4:30 p.m.
                            Refreshments Available

------------------------------

Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: Seminar - Probabilistic Inference: Theory and Practice (SMU)

Title: Probabilistic Inference: Theory and Practice

Speaker: Won D. Lee
University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign
Location: 315SIC
Time: 2:00 PM

This talk presents a system and a methodology for probabilistic learning
from examples.

First, I present a new methodology, Probabilistic Rule Generator
(PRG), of variable-valued logic synthesis which can be applied
effectively to noisy data.  Then a new system, Probabilistic
Inference, which can generate concepts with limited time and/or
resources is defined.  It is discussed how PRG can be a practical tool
for Probabilistic Inference.

A departure from the classical viewpoint in logic minimization, and in
knowledge acquisition is reported.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 86 19:52:30 PST
From: cottrell@nprdc.arpa (Gary Cottrell)
Subject: Conference - Southern California AI Conference Program


           Southern California Conference on Artificial Intelligence
                            Saturday, April 26, 1986
                                 Peterson Hall
                                      UCSD
                    Sponsored by San Diego SIGART and SCAIS

          9:00am          Registration Desk Opens

          10:00am-12:00pm Invited Overviews

          10:00am-10:25am AI Environment and Research at UCLA
          Michael G. Dyer and Josef Skrzypek, UCLA AI Lab

          10:30am-10:55am Ai Research at USC
          Peter Norvig, USC

          11:00am-11:25am     Parallel     Distributed     Processing:
          Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition
          David E. Rumelhart, Institute for Cognitive Science, UCSD

          11:30am-11:55am Human Computer Interaction: Research at  the
          Intelligent Systems Group
          Jim Hollan, Intelligent Systems Group, UCSD

          12:00-1:00      Buffet Lunch

          1:00pm-3:00pm   SCAIS Session I: Expert Systems

          1:00pm-1:15pm RAMBOT:  A connectionist  expert  system  that
          learns by example
          Michael C. Mozer, Institute for Cognitive Science, UCSD

          1:20pm-1:35pm A small expert system that learns
          George S. Levy, Counseling and Consulting Associates, San Diego

          1:40pm-1:55pm A knowledge based selection system
          Xi-an Zhu, Dept. of Electrical Engineering, USC

          2:00pm-2:15pm STYLE Counselor: An expert system to select ties
          Jeffrey Blake, Peter Tenereillo, and Jeff Wicks
          Department of Mathematical Sciences, SDSU

          2:20pm-2:35pm A health and nutrition expert system
          Marwan Yacoub, Department of Mathematical Sciences, SDSU

          2:40pm-2:55pm An inexact reasoning scheme based on intervals
          of probabilities
          Koenraad Lecot, Computer Science Dept., UCLA

          1:00pm-3:00pm   SCAIS Session 2: Vision and Natural Language

          1:00pm-1:15pm A Scheme-based PC vision workstation
          Michael Stiber and Josef Skrzypek, CS Dept., UCLA and CRUMP Inst.

          1:20pm-1:35pm  Early  Vision:  3-D  silicone   solution   to
          lightness constancy
          Paul C. H. Lin and Josef Skrzypek, CS Dept., UCLA and CRUMP Inst.

          1:40pm-1:55pm A  connectionist  computing  architecture  for
          textural segmentation
          Edmond Mesrobian and Josef Skrzypek, CS Dept., UCLA and CRUMP Inst.

          2:00pm-2:15pm ANIMA: Analogical Image Analysis
          Arthur Newman, Computer Science Dept., UCLA

          2:20pm-2:35pm Representing pragmatic  knowledge  in  lexical
          memory
          Michael Gasser, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, UCLA

          2:40pm-2:55pm The role  of  mental  spaces  in  establishing
          universal  principles  for  the  semantic  interpretation of
          cliches
          Michelle Gross, Linguistics Dept., UCSD

          1:00pm-3:00pm   SIGART Session 1

          1:00pm-1:25pm Using commonsense knowledge for  prepositional
          phrase attachment
          K. Dahlgren, IBM

          1:30pm-1:55pm Social Intelligence
          Les Gasser, Computer Science Dept., USC

          2:00pm-2:25pm  A  unified  algebraic  theory  of  logic  and
          probability
          Philip Calabrese, LOGICON

          2:30pm-2:55pm  Learning  while  searching   in   constraint-
          satisfaction problems
          Rina Dechter,  & Hughes AI Center Cognitive Systems Lab, UCLA

          3:00-3:30 Coffee Break

          3:30pm-5:30pm   SCAIS Session 3: Connectionist Models & Learning

          3:30pm-3:45pm Toward  optimal  parameter  selection  in  the
          back-propagation algorithm
          Yves Chauvin, Institute for Cognitive Science, UCSD

          3:50pm-4:05pm Inverting a connectionist network  mapping  by
          back-propagation of error
          Ron Williams, Institute for Cognitive Science, UCSD

          4:10pm-4:25pm Learning internal representations from gray scale images
          Gary Cottrell and Paul Munro, Institute for Cognitive Science, UCSD

          4:30pm-4:45pm Decomposition in perceptron systems
          Rik Verstraete, Computer Science Dept., UCLA

          4:50pm-5:05pm Adaptive Self-Organizing Logic Networks
          Tony Martinez, ***

          5:10pm-5:25pm Human understanding in diverse environments
          Louis Rossi, Harvey Mudd College

          3:30pm-5:30pm   SCAIS Session 4: Miscellaneous
          (HMI, Planning, Problem Solving, Knowledge Representation)

          3:30pm-3:45pm Producing coherent interactions in a tutoring system
          Balaji Narasimhan, Computer Science Dept., USC

          3:50pm-4:05pm AQUA: An intelligent UNIX advisor
          Alex Quilici, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, UCLA

          4:10pm-4:25pm Errors in parsing problem descriptions
          Eric Hestenes, Problem Solving Group, UCSD

          4:30pm-4:45pm Constraint based problem solving
          Mitchell Saywitz, Computer Science Dept., USC

          4:50pm-5:05pm An approach to  planning  and  scheduling  for
          robot assembly lines
          Xiaodong Xia, Computer Science Dept., USC

          5:10pm-5:25pm Changes of mind: Revision of  "interpretation"
          in episodic memory
          Antoine Cornuejols, Computer Science Dept. UCLA

          3:30pm-5:30pm   SIGART Session 2

          3:30pm-355pm  Facilitating  parametric  analyses   with   AI
          methodologies
          N. T. Gladd, JAYCOR

          4:00pm-4:25pm Computer Chess: Arguments and examples  for  a
          knowledge-based approach
          Danny Kopec, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, SDSU

          4:30pm-4:55pm  Artificial   Intelligence   applications   in
          information retrieval
          Mark Chignell, Dept. of Industrial & Systems Engineering, USC

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************

∂11-Apr-86  0355	LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA 	AIList Digest   V4 #77
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Apr 86  03:55:16 PST
Date: Thu 10 Apr 1986 22:57-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #77
To: AIList@SRI-AI


AIList Digest            Friday, 11 Apr 1986       Volume 4 : Issue 77

Today's Topics:
  Bibliographies - AI Subject Codes & Report Sources &
    Technical Reports #1

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: AI Subject Codes

The following is a list of subject codes that are being put in the %K
field of all bibliographies going out to AILIST.  Hopefully, this will
be of assistance to people in finding material on their favorite
subfield of artificial intelligence.  This searching is best done
with the bib or refer utilities but could be done less conveniently
with more general-purpose utilities.

For example, if one is interested in applications of expert systems to
electrical engineering one would search for AI01 and AA04.

←←←←←←

AI areas

AI01 Expert Systems, Rule Based Systems
AI02 Natural Language
AI03 Search (Minimax, Consistant Labelling, alpha-beta, etc.)
AI04 Learning
AI05 Speech Understanding
AI06 Vision, Pattern Recogniton
AI07 Robotics
AI08 Cognitive Science
AI09 Planning
AI10 Logic Programming (material on prolog only will be under T02)
AI11 Theorem Proving
AI12 Neural Networks, Genetic Algorithms, etc.
AI13 Decision Support
AI14 Symbolic Math

Application Areas

AA01 Medicine
AA02 Chemistry
AA03 Geology, Mineral Extraction, Petroleum Extraction and Geology
AA04 Electrical Engineering
AA05 Other Engineering, Unclassifiable Engineering
AA06 Financial, Business, Marketing, Accounting, Etc.
AA07 Education
AA08 Software Engineering, Automatic Programming, Computer Configuration
     and Operation
AA09 Data Bases
AA10 Biology
AA11 Social Sciences
AA12 Statistics
AA13 Mathematics
AA14 Information Retrieval
AA15 User Interfaces to other Software
AA16 Other Physcial Science
AA17 Game Playing
AA18 Military Applications
AA19 Operating Equipment, e. g. pilots associate, autonomous land vehicle
AA20 Process Control
AA21 Diagnostic and Maintenance Systems (Other than Medical)
AA22 Configuration Systems
AA23 Agriculture
AA24 Legal
AA25 Art, Humanities, Music, Architecture, entertainment etc.

Geographical Areas

GA01 Japan
GA02 United States
GA03 Europe
GA04 Canada

Tools for AI

T01  Lisp
T02  Prolog
T03  Expert System Tools

Hardware for AI

H01  Microcomputers
H02  Lisp Machines
H03  Parallel Processing
H04  Supercomputers, e. g. Crays

Other Areas

O01  User Interfaces for AI systems
O02  Software Engineering Issues in the Construction of AI programs
O03  Real Time
O04  Fuzzy Logic, Uncertainty Issues, etc.
O05  Social Aspects of AI

Article Types

AT01 Advertisements
AT02 Product Announcements
AT03 Examples of AI Hype
AT04 Market Predictions
AT05 Interviews with Executives of Companies
AT06 Other Interviews
AT07 Book Reviews
AT08 Tutorial Articles
AT09 Bibliography
AT10 Announcements of Company University Interactions
AT11 New Bindings
AT12 Letters to the Editors
AT13 Corrections
AT14 Pronouncements of Famous People
AT15 BOOK
AT16 Company Business, e. g. new financing, revenue announcements,
     joint marketing agreements etc.
AT17 Software Reviews
AT18 Articles on AI topic eduation
AT19 Notes about Grantsmanship and Research Milieu type issues
AT20 History of AI topics
AT21 Bibliography

------------------------------

Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: Report Sources


Naomi Schulman,  Publications
COMPUTER SYSTEMS LABORATORY
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Stanford, CA 94305

UCLA COMPUTER SCIENCE DEPARTMENT
University of California
3713 Boelter Hall
Los Angeles, CA 90024

Cindy Hathaway, technical reports
secretary, computer science department, louisiana state university,
baton rouge, louisiana 70803, or cindy@lsu on csnet

California Institute of Technology
Computer Science, 256-80
Pasadena California 91125

Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Departments
Stevens Institute of Technology
Castle Point Station
Hoboken, New Jersey 07030

Computer Science Department
University of Rochester
Rochester, New York 14627

Ms. Sally Goodall
Technical Reports Librarian
Computer Science Department
SUNY Albany LI 67A
Albany, New York 12222

Technical Reports
Department of Computer Science
Campus Box 1045
Washington University
St. Louis, Missouri 63130


Department of Computer Science
136 Lind Hall
University of Minnesota, Twin cities
207 Church Street SE
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455

IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Distribution Services, F-11, Stormytown
P.O. Box 218
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598

------------------------------

Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: Technical Reports #1


%A Bruce Abramson
%T A Cure for Pathological Behavior in Games that use Minimax
%R CUCS-153-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI03 AA17

%A Peter K. Allen
%A Ruzena Bajcsy
%T Integrating Sensory Data for Object Recognition Tasks
%R CUCS-184-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI06

%A Peter Kirby Allen
%T Object Recognition Using Vision and Touch
%R CUCS-220-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI06 AI07

%A Terrance E. Boult
%T Reproducing Kernels for Visual Surface Interpolation
%R CUCS-186-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI06

%A Terrance E. Boult
%T Visual Surface Interpolation: A Comparison of Two Methods
%R CUCS-189-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI06

%A Galina Datskovsky
%T Menu Interfaces to Expert Systems: Overview and Evaluation
%R CUCS-168-84
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K O01 AI01

%A Galina Datskovsky
%T Natural Language Interfaces to Expert Systems
%R CUCS-169-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI01 O01 AI02

%A Thomas Ellman
%T Generalizing Logic Circuit Designs by Analyzing Proofs of Correctness
%R CUCS-190-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AA04

%A Bruce K. Hilyer
%A David Elliot Shaw
%T Execution of OPS5 Production Systems on a Massively Parallel Machine
%R CUCS-147-84
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI01 H03

%A Bruce K. Hillyer
%T A Knowledge-Based Expert Systems Primer and Catalog
%R CUCS-195-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI01 AT08

%A Hussaein A. H. Ibrahim
%A John R. Kender
%A David Elliot Shaw
%T On the Application of Massively Parallel SIMD Tree Machines
to Certain Intermediate-Level Vision Tasks
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%R CUCS-221-85
%K AI06  H03

%A Husein A. H. Ibrahim
%A John R. Kender
%A David Elliot Shaw
%T SIMD Tree Algorithms for Image Correlation
%R CUCS-222-86
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI06 H03

%A Toru Ishida
%A Salvatore Stolfo
%T Towards the Parallel Execution of Rules in Production Systems Programs
%R CUCS-154-84
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K H03 AI01

%A John R. Kender
%A David Lee
%A Terrance Boult
%T Information Based Complexity Applied to Optimal Recovery of the 2 1/2-D
Sketch
%R CUCS-170-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI06

%A Richard E. Korf
%T Macro-Operators: A Weak Method for Learning
%R CUCS-156-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI04

%A Richard E. Korf
%T Depth-First Iterative-Depending: An Optimal Admissible Tree Search
%R CUCS-197-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI03

%A Michael Lebowitz
%T The Use of Memory in Text Processing
%R CUCS-200-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI02 Researcher Patent

%A Michael Lebowitz
%T Integrated Learning: Controlling Explanation
%R CUCS-201-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI04 Unimem

%A MIchael Lebowitz
%T Story Telling and Generalizations
%R CUCS-202-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI02

%A Michael Lebowitz
%T Researcher: An Experimental Intelligent Information Systems
%R CUCS-171-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI02 AA14

%A David Lee
%T Contributions to Information-Based Complexity, Image Understanding,
and Logic Circuit Desing
%R CUCS-182-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI06 AA04

%A David Lee
%T Optimal Algorithms for Image Understanding: Current Status and Future Plans
%R CUCS-183-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI06

%A Mark D. Lerner
%A Michael von Biema
%A Gerald Q. Maguire, Jr.
%R CUCS-146-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K PSL PPSL H03 T01

%A Mark D. Lerner
%A Gerald Q. Maguire, Jr.
%A Salvatore J. Stolfo
%T An Overview of the DADO Parallel Computer
%R CUCS-157-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K H03 AI01 T03 AI10

%A Andy Lowery
%A Stephen Taylor
%A Salvatore J. Stolfo
%T LPS Algorithms
%R CUCS-203-84
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI10 H03

%A Kevin Matthews
%T Taking the Initiative for System Goals in Cooperative Dialogue
%R CUCS-150-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K advisor AI02

%A Kevin Matthews
%T Initiatory and Reactive System Roles in Human Computer Discourse
%R CUCS-151-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K advisor AI02

%A Kathleen R. McKeown
%A Myron Wish
%A Kevin Matthews
%T Tailoring Explanations for the User
%R CUCS-172-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI01 AI02 O01

%A Katthleen R. McKeown
%T The Need for Text Generation
%R CUCS-173-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI01 AI02 O01

%A Kathleen R. McKeown
%T Discourse Strategies for Generating Natural Language Text
%R CUCS-204-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI02 AA09

%A Mark L. Moerdler
%A John R. Kender
%T Surface Orientation and Segmentation from Perspective Views of
Parallel-Line Textures
%R CUCS-159-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI06

%A Luanne Burns
%A Alexander Pasik
%T A Generic Framework for Expert Data Analysis Systems
%R CUCS-163-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI01 AA09

%A Alexander Pasik
%A Jans Christensen
%A Douglas Gordin
%A Agata Stancato-Pasik
%A Salvatore Stolfo
%T Explanation and Acquisition in Expert System Using Support Knowledge
%R CUCS-164-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI01 AA01 DTEX

%A K. S. Roberts
%T Equivalent Descriptions of Generalized Cylinders
%R CUCS-210-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City

%A Salvatore J. STolfo
%A Daniel P. Miranker
%T The DADO Production System Machine
%R CUCS-213-84
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K H03 AI01

%A Salvatore J. STolfo
%A Daniel M. Miranker
%A Russel C. Mills
%T More Rules May Mean Faster Parallel Execution
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%R CUCS-175-85
%K RETE H03 AI01

%A Salvatore J. STolfo
%A Daniel M. Miranker
%A Russel C. Mills
%T A Simple Preprocessing Scheme to Extract and Balance Implicit
Parallelism in the Concurrent Match of Production Rules
%R CUCS-174-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K H03 AI01 RETE T02 AI10

%A Peter Waldes
%A Janet Lustgarten
%A Salvatore J. Stolfo
%T Are Maintenance Expert Systems Practical Now?
%R CUCS-166-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI01 AA04 Automated Cable Expert Telephone AA21

%A J. F. Traub
%T Information Based Complexity
%R CUCS-162-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI03
%X information-based complexity is based on the assumption that
it is partial, contaminated and it costs in comparison to
ordinary complexity theory in which information is complete, exact and
free.  [There were several reports on this subject.  I am only including
one in this bibliography as it is not clear whether it is related to
AI or not.  Contact Columbia for more info if desired.  LEFF]

%A Kenneth Hal Wasserman
%T Unifying Representation and Generalization: Understanding
Hierarchically Structured Objects
%R TCUCS-177-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AA06
%X describes a system to understand upper-level corporate management
hierarchies

%A Ursula Wolz
%T Analyzing User Plans to Produce Informative Responses
by a Programmers' Consultant
%R CUCS-218-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AA08 AI02 AI09 AA15

%A Othar Hansson
%A Andrew E. Mayer
%A Mordechai M. Yung
%T Generating Admissible Heuristics by Criticizing Solutions to Relaxed
Models
%R CUCS-219-85
%I Columbia University
%C New