perm filename AUGBAC.MSG[MSG,JMC] blob sn#175876 filedate 1975-08-29 generic text, type C, neo UTF8
COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	
C00104 ENDMK
C⊗;

∂16-JUL-75  1052		1,MSW @ USCT
 Ed Fredkin can be reached at the VC lodge untill July 22 75
 Tel. (303) 944 2211

∂15-JUL-75  1517		1,PAW
 Chowning and his group would like to meet with you on Thursday at 3:00, let me
 know if that is not agreeable....patte

∂14-JUL-75  2234		ESS,JMC
 Call Glassmire 503 753-2527

∂14-JUL-75  2033		VCG,DCL
 John- Please let me know what the status of the adjunct
 faculty position is. 
 Also I don't know if you have a copy of the final version 
 of the NSF proposal that was submitted.
 -David

∂14-JUL-75  1444		network site RAND
                 M E M O R A N D U M                     8 July 1975
 
 To:     F. Corbato, J. Markowitz, J.McCarthy/L. Earnest, M. Pirtle,
         T. Stockham, I. Sutherland, B. Woods
 
 From:   Peter Weiner (WEINER @ RAND-RCC)
 
 Subject:  Report on Computing Resources
 
 --------
 
         The body of the (hopefully) final version of our report
 
 follows.  Please let me know, by July 16, if you agree to our
 
 submitting it to ARPA.  If you want other changes, please be very
 
 specific.
 
 Regards,
 
 Peter
 
 --------
 
 
 
 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
 ------- -- ---------------
 
 
 1.  Provide network-based reliable computing
 
 2.  Develop "personal computing"
 
 3.  Develop a network-wide file/archive system
 
 4.  Add special computing devices and software services to the network
 
 5.  Continue PDP-10 TENEX service during 1975-80
 
 6.  Support near-term TENEX/Network improvements
 
 7.  Induce DEC to assume TENEX responsibility
 
 8.  Centralize common network resources in 2 or 3 sites
 
 
 INTRODUCTION
 ------------
 
         Our committee was formed to consider the computational
 
 needs of the ARPA/IPTO research community and how they might best
 
 be fulfilled in the next decade.  We take this charter in its
 
 broadest sense, assuming that our committee should provide advice
 
 and suggestions not only about extensions to the existing facility
 
 but also alternatives to it, even though radical.  In a time when
 
 the state of digital electronics is changing the capabilities of
 
 computers by an order of magnitude every five years and ARPA itself
 
 is tending towards direct involvement in military applications, a
 
 general review of the computing facilities required by ARPA/IPTO
 
 research contractors seems warranted.
 
 
 A View of ARPA/IPTO Computing Ten Years Out
 - ---- -- --------- --------- --- ----- ---
 
         In this section, we briefly describe a scenario of the
 
 ARPA/IPTO computing environment ten years from now.  We do this for
 
 two reasons.  First, we believe that ARPA can and should strive
 
 for a significant impact on the future style of DOD computing;
 
 and second, because we want our recommendations to be consistant
 
 with a clearly stated long term goal.
 
 
         It is clear that the ARPA/IPTO research community will
 
 continue to rely heavily on networking into the indefinite future,
 
 but the role of the network may change somewhat.  The most important
 
 function we see for networking is to provide an absolutely
 
 reliable and solid network-wide file system for the research
 
 community.  Of particular note is the implementation of an
 
 automatic archival sytem that integrates local on-site storage
 
 with the network file system.  Computational resource sharing
 
 will continue to be an important function of the network, but
 
 mainly with respect to unusual (typified today by the Illiac IV)
 
 or varied (typified today by Multics, the IBM 360/91, the B6700,
 
 etc.) resources;  tasks now being handled by time-shared
 
 medium-size computers -- text creation and modification,
 
 compilation and small/medium scale computations, etc. -- will
 
 revert to the province of relatively small on-site processors.
 
 
 --------
 
 
         An important prelude to making recommendations about the
 
 directions of future facilities is first to define the objectives.
 
 ARPA's mission, it seems to us, should be two fold:  on the
 
 one hand to fill the needs of advanced researchers so as to
 
 advance the state of the art as much as possible at as little
 
 cost as possible, and on the other hand to provide for the
 
 maximum useability of that research for military purposes.  To
 
 some extent these goals conflict.  Consider, for example, the
 
 conflict between standardization and individuality.  Unique
 
 facilities tend to promote unique and potentially interesting
 
 results.  They also tend to make those results hard to pass on
 
 to others.
 
 
         The remainder of this report provides, in this context,
 
 our advice to ARPA/IPT0 management; eight specific recommendations
 
 are offerred, each with some discussion.  The first four of our
 
 recommendations are concerned with realizing the long-term
 
 senario described above.  When applicable, suggestions are made
 
 for associated research and development that needs to be carried
 
 out over the next few years.  The second four of our recommendations
 
 are concerned with ways to strengthen the short term situation.
 
 
 Recommendation 1:  Provide network-based reliable computing.
 -------------- -
 
         Over the next five to ten years, ARPA/IPTO should provide
 
 to its research contractors a network-based computing environment
 
 that is a) absolutely reliable and always available, b) consistent
 
 in performance, and c) highly responsive.
 
 
         As a first step, ARPA should initiate a 5-year research
 
 and development program in reliable computing.
 
 
 Discussion:
 ----------
 
         By "abolutely reliable and always available," we mean to
 
 suggest performance comparable to that of the telephone system;
 
 service outages are extremely infrequent, information is rarely
 
 lost, file integrity is maintained, etc.  By "consistent in
 
 performance" we mean that the user's expectations of system
 
 response, based on past usage, are uniformly satisfied.  "Highly
 
 responsive" implies a high bandwith information flow from the
 
 computer to the user, i.e.  high speed two-dimensional output devices,
 
 supported with appropriate software.
 
 
         The principle component of ARPA computing facilities has
 
 been the ARPA network.  This network, now comprising more than
 
 75 host computers in a nationwide hookup, has provided the bulk
 
 of the computing services used by ARPA contractors.
 
 
         The ARPA network has been a major success technically.
 
 It is reasonably reliable.  It is in widespread use.  It has
 
 clearly demonstrated the technical feasibility of packet switching
 
 as a communications technique.
 
 
         Perhaps the greatest success of the network, however, has
 
 been a psychological one:  a sense of community has developed among
 
 ARPA researchers which makes collaboration and the use of other
 
 people's work more professionally acceptable than ever before.  The
 
 ability to pass programs and data files quickly and easily from one
 
 researcher to another has made collaborative research practical.
 
 The network mail service has enhanced communication capabilities;
 
 it takes less time to send a message to a colleague through the network
 
 than it takes to call him by phone and he can pick up the message
 
 at his convenience.  The sense of community among ARPA researchers
 
 fostered by the network is having a major effect on the number and
 
 intensity of collaborative efforts now underway and is thus improving
 
 the quality of research available to ARPA.
 
 
         If the ARPA network has fundamentally changed our view of
 
 what to expect from computing resources, there is still much that
 
 can be improved upon.  Consider the researcher who experiences
 
 a system crash on a remote system and then finds all his files
 
 have gone away.  Consider the manager who mails a message to a
 
 subordinate, only to be told later that the system lost the message.
 
 Or consider the researcher who has to wait an increasingly anxious
 
 and uncertain ten minutes for an overloaded computer to respond
 
 to a request that got done yesterday in only two minutes.  In
 
 all these cases the productivity of the computer user suffers
 
 and he spends all too much of his time fighting the system
 
 instead of using it.  He may even reject the system entirely
 
 and choose instead to depend on more reliable, though less effective,
 
 means.
 
 
         The successful demonstration of packet switched network
 
 theory in the form of the working ARPA network has had a profound
 
 influence on DOD thinking about computer communications and resource
 
 utilization.  We believe that a working demonstration of reliable
 
 consistant, responsive network-based computing will greatly facilitate
 
 acceptance of ARPA developed research ideas.  For this reason we
 
 consider Recommendation 1 to be the key finding of our investigation.
 
 
 Recommendation 2:  Develop "personal computing"
 -------------- -
 
         ARPA should support the development of "personal computing."
 
 One attractive initial step would be to contract for the development
 
 of a minicomputer-priced version of the PDP-10 that runs TENEX.
 
 
         For the 1980-85 time period, ARPA should provide each member
 
 of its research community with a (logical) personal computer.
 
 
 Discussion:
 ----------
 
         As we have already indicated, we believe that computing
 
 should be highly responsive to the user, with predictable responses
 
 to repeated requests.  This leads us to a computing senario that
 
 includes a dedication of computing resources to individual users --
 
 to "personal computing."
 
 
         An important concept we have evolved is that of a
 
 "logical personal computer" that we feel should be provided
 
 each researcher.  We argue as follows:  The requirement for
 
 responsive computing suggests a dedication of memory to each
 
 connected computer user, certainly for the function of refreshing
 
 a two-dimensional terminal screen.  In addition, adequate
 
 editing response can only be achieved by having some local
 
 file storage together with local processors.  Within ten years,
 
 low-cost local processors will have power exceeding today's
 
 medium sized machines.  The requirement of consistent performance
 
 suggests that these processors be dedicated to connected users.
 
 But the resulting "personal computer" need not be co-located
 
 with the user, nor need it sit idle when the user is disconnected
 
 from the system -- it need only be within a distance that allows
 
 a high bandwidth connection to the user's office.
 
 
         One view of the personal computing environment is as
 
 follows.  Each person will be provided with a two dimensional
 
 display for output (we conjecture that TV technology will continue
 
 to dominate), and a keyboard and mouse for input.  Audio input and
 
 output will be available as options to be used when the added expenses
 
 can be justified.  A processor, with the power of, say, a KI-10
 
 will be dedicated to each active user.  The processor will run an
 
 operating system which is designed to support display terminals.  The
 
 collection of (real or logical) personal computers at each facility
 
 will be connected through a local network.  This network will be
 
 provided with enough file storage to hold all working files, and will
 
 be connected to the ARPA network (or its sucessor) and the telephone
 
 system.  The ARPAnet will contain a collection of "computational
 
 crunchers":  unique resources such as the ILLIAC IV, Datacomputer, a
 
 machine with large primary memory tuned to running large LISP programs,
 
 etc.  The network file system will give authorized users access
 
 to any file generated in the community.  Communication connections
 
 to other networks will be provided.
 
 
         We believe that it is only a matter of time before the
 
 computing environment just described can be cost-effectively
 
 supplied to the entire research community.  (We assume that as costs
 
 come down the size of the research community does not grow
 
 substantially.)  It is less clear whether manufacturers will of
 
 their own initiave develop personal computing in the style described.
 
 It may be necessary to initiate a research and development program
 
 and to allow prototypes to be built and tested.
 
 
 Recommendation 3:  Develop a network-wide file/archive system
 -------------- -
 
         ARPA should initiate the development of a network-wide file
 
 system.  Emphasis should be on providing ultra-high reliability,
 
 together with complete archival capabilities.
 
 
 Discussion:
 ----------
 
         One of the major discoveries of ARPA research in information
 
 processing so far has been the extreme importance of the file system
 
 associated with a multi-access computer.  The file system in early
 
 time-sharing systems rapidly became a means of communication between
 
 users of the system, enabling them to much more easily build on each
 
 other's efforts.  The same importance of files has been evident in
 
 the ARPA  network.  Files can be transmitted through the network from
 
 one researcher to another and thus form again the major communication
 
 mechanism between people who use the network.
 
 
         At the present time, the network consists largely of a
 
 collection of computing centers, each with its own file system.
 
 While we believe that the future will see local on-site processors
 
 satisfying most computing requests, we see all the more need for
 
 a standardized network-wide file system (with physical file storage
 
 centralized in 2 or 3 locations.)  The cost of a centralized bulk
 
 store is expected to be much lower on a per bit basis than that of
 
 relatively small sized local stores.  Another advantage of such a
 
 system is that it would allow for uniformity of file management as
 
 well as uniformity of file addressing.  Moreover, reliability through
 
 redundancy becomes practical through standard network-wide policies.
 
 
         We believe that the network file/archive system needs
 
 effective and flexible user control of file sharing and access,
 
 denial of access, write protection, etc.  This should be specifiable
 
 by user and user subgroups.  The net-archive, in addition to needing
 
 access controls also needs to strive for processor independence,
 
 language independence, and needs to solve the multiple copies for
 
 reliability and the single copy for consistency dilemma.
 
 
         Except where large amounts of data are needed close to the
 
 computing power (such as in signal processing research involving
 
 images, sonar, and very large data bases), only small amounts of
 
 file storage holding active files need be local.  Cost considerations
 
 suggest the use of very large bulk storage devices to hold inactive
 
 files.  We believe the largest of these devices will be cheap enough
 
 to allow all work produced by a researcher to be kept in permanent
 
 archives, and that this facility should be an automatic feature of
 
 the system.
 
 
 Recommendation 4:  Add special computing devices and software services
 -------------- -        to the network.
 
         ARPA should remain alert to opportunities for placing special
 
 computing devices and facilities into the network.
 
 
         ARPA should remain alert to opportunities for supporting
 
 special software services.
 
 
 
 Discussion:
 ----------
 
         Because the hardware technology available for fabrication of
 
 computing devices is undergoing rapid change, many advances in
 
 computing capability can be expected to come from new configurations
 
 of hardware.  These advances can sometimes lead to accelerated
 
 progress in areas of prime concern to ARPA.  For example, intelligent
 
 systems research is now being limited by the address space and amount
 
 of primary memory accessible in today's machines.  Similarly, progress
 
 in signal processing is likely to be greatly enhanced in the near
 
 future by special collections of hardware able to implement the fast
 
 Fourier transform (FFT).
 
 
         Such devices may at first be very costly, and might thus be
 
 considered only as special facilities within the network. The network
 
 provides the important capability of making such facilities available
 
 to researchers in spite of widespread geographical distribution.  By
 
 introducing such devices on a trial basis as network resources ARPA
 
 can achieve the maximum impact on the future of DOD computing.
 
 
         Illiac IV and the Datacomputer are two examples of facilities
 
 which now exist.  Two possible new candidates are:  1) a machine with
 
 large primary memory, tuned for intelligent systems research, and
 
 2) a special machine designed to search very large data bases quickly.
 
 
         Similarly, special software packages developed by ARPA have
 
 the potential for greatly affecting the way DoD uses its computational
 
 resources.  The development of message technology as a communications
 
 mechanism which was preceded by the introduction of network mail
 
 services is a case in point.  Cross compilation services for small
 
 machines are possible candidates for inclusion.
 
 
         Improved methods are needed to disseminate information about
 
 the network and the capabilities of the various sites.  We suggest
 
 that a network-wide documentation protocal be developed and
 
 implemented at each site.  The protocol would enable outsiders to
 
 interact both in top-down and directed search modes to locate
 
 information about equipment and services available, key personnel,
 
 etc.  Public research reports, position papers, bibliographies, etc.,
 
 should also be maintained on-line.  The incremental cost of
 
 maintaining this kind of service would be quite modest.
 
 
 Recommendation 5:  Continue PDP-10 TENEX service during 1975-80
 -------------- -
 
         ARPA should initiate immediate and detailed discussions
 
 with DEC about the "TENEX version" of the KL-10.  If preliminary
 
 assertions about the cost-effectiveness of this machine stand up,
 
 ARPA should seriously consider depending on the KL-10 for the next
 
 five years.
 
 
 Discussion:
 ----------
 
         The PDP KA-10 computer running TENEX has been the mainstay
 
 of the ARPA research community.  While this system has some
 
 deficiencies (notably a lack of facilities for support of display
 
 terminals, a fragile file system, inefficient handling of real
 
 time devices, etc.) it has served the community well.  The newer
 
 KI-10 computer, however, using its own paging device rather the BBN
 
 paging box, has proven to run LISP programs very slowly and is not
 
 cost effective for the ARPA work load.  (Changes to TENEX code
 
 are expected to alleviate this situation.)
 
 
         There exists a shortage of PDP-10 cycles at this time, and
 
 demand for additional cycles is likely to grow rapidly.  Fortunatly,
 
 DEC is about to introduce a new KL-10 processor and is capable of
 
 modifying the paging mechanisms and/or TENEX to produce a version that
 
 will efficiently run TENEX.  The new system is projected to run about
 
 five times as fast as the KA-10, even for the typical ARPA job mix,
 
 while costing just a little more than the KA-10.  If these assertions
 
 hold up under closer examination (DEC was understandably vague in our
 
 discussions), then ARPA should seriously consider depending on the
 
 KL-10 over the next five years.
 
 
         If the choice must be made between leasing several new
 
 KL-10 computers soon, or scheduling the purchase of these computers
 
 over a longer span of years, we favor the leasing mechanism to
 
 provide greater amounts of computing power sooner, and to allow
 
 for a controlled phaseout of KL-10 service in favor of personal
 
 computing.  Indeed we would prefer to see ARPA arrange for the
 
 block-purchase of PDP-10 cycles; if ARPA were to guarantee a
 
 certain amount of business over the next five year period,
 
 private capital to finance purchase of the required computing
 
 equipment could be attracted.
 
 
 Recommendation 6:  Support near-term TENEX/Network improvements
 -------------- -
 
         ARPA should provide funds for changing TENEX and TIP
 
 software where significant improvements in machine or network
 
 performance can be projected.  In particular, changes to Telnet,
 
 host-host, and host-imp protocols are needed.  Plans should be
 
 made to produce a "final" ARPA supported version (1.35) of TENEX.
 
 All TENEX sites should be strongly encouraged to move quickly to
 
 the latest version.
 
 
 Discussion:
 ----------
 
         There are currently 15 machines on the ARPAnet that run TENEX.
 
 If a software improvement results in a 10% increase in thruput,
 
 then this improvement is worth the cost of 1 1/2 TENEX systems.
 
 For example, it is estimated that the scheduler in version 1.31 used
 
 up to 30% of the CPU, while the new scheduler uses only about 10%.
 
 The largest inefficiency remaining relates to the full-duplex
 
 character-at-a-time treatment of network teletype traffic.
 
 Perhaps as much as 10% of each TENEX machine can be recovered by
 
 replacing the Telnet protocols in both TENEX and the TIPs
 
 to allow for a line-at-a-time discipline.  Other changes to the
 
 host-host and host-imp protocols would increase reliability and
 
 significantly increase the effective bandwidth of host-host file
 
 transfers.
 
 
         Another potentially cost-effective approach to the same ends
 
 would provide for a front-end processor and interface between the
 
 PDP-10 and the network.
 
 
 
 Recommendation 7:  Induce DEC to assume TENEX responsibility
 -------------- -
 
         A vigorous effort to get the Digital Equipment Corporation
 
 to assume responsibility for the TENEX operating system and its
 
 successors should be undertaken.  The systems programming group
 
 involved should be on the network.
 
 
 Discussion:
 ----------
 
         Although DEC purchased rights to TENEX from BBN some years
 
 ago, it is only recently that DEC has been willing to commit its
 
 future time-sharing activities to the foundation established by
 
 TENEX.  Having a commercial supplier willing and able to take over
 
 continued development of the prime operating system used in the
 
 network would be a very important step towards transfer of network
 
 ideas to industrial and military application.  As long as systems
 
 developed by ARPA contractors are not directly available from some
 
 commercial supplier there will be unnecessary resistance to its
 
 application in other areas.
 
 
         Our contacts with DEC indicate that they are considering
 
 adopting and supporting TENEX as a commercial product.  ARPA
 
 should encourage this decision by making it part of the negotiations
 
 for new machines.  Specific contractual agreements are recommended
 
 as opposed to informal understandings.  In particular, arrangements
 
 should be made to insure that TENEX machines run efficiently in
 
 the network environment.
 
 
         It is important to the network users that the operating
 
 system development group be faced with the same problems of
 
 machine use that face the users.  "If you want a reliable operating
 
 system, use the one that the operating system developers use!" is
 
 an absolutely true statement.  It is important to the ARPA research
 
 community, therefore, that the operating system group at DEC be
 
 made an integral part of the network.
 
 
         It is important that the operating systems development group
 
 be on the network for technology transfer reasons as well.  If this
 
 group is an active participant in the network they will become
 
 familiar with problems facing network users as well as solutions
 
 developed with ARPA support.  Such an intimate familiarity would
 
 greatly speed the transfer of ARPA-developed technology into
 
 commercial availability.
 
 
 Recommendation 8:  Centralize common network resources in 2 or 3 sites
 -------------- -
 
         Common network resources should be centralized in at least two
 
 and at most three different geographic loactions.  This recommendation
 
 is a compromise between the savings in operational maintenance
 
 and system programming costs to be achieved by centralization and
 
 the risk of total system loss to natural disaster if only a single
 
 location were used.
 
 
 Discussion:
 ----------
 
         The phrase "common network resources" is meant to denote
 
 differents things during different time periods.  For the next five
 
 years, we mean general time-shared computing, particularly TENEX
 
 service.  Beyond that time, as personal computers take over this
 
 computing load, we mean file storage and archival resources.
 
 
         At the present time, the bulk of general time-shared computing
 
 is provided to ARPA contractors by similarly configured PDP-10
 
 installations geographically dispersed across the nation.  This
 
 situation is historically rooted from a time prior to the introduction
 
 of the ARPA network.
 
 
         More recently, the trend has been to accumulate computing
 
 power at but a few locations, such as at ISI and BBN.  This has
 
 resulted in low cost management, operation, and maintenance, both
 
 of hardware and software. This trend should be continued.  As
 
 existing isolated KA-10 processors lose their cost-effectiveness,
 
 they should not be upgraded in place;  rather, additional capability
 
 should be added to centralized resource centers.
 
 
         It should be observed that not all computing can be provided
 
 from centralized resources.  Much image processing research, for example,
 
 requires high bandwidth connection between the input/output devices
 
 (which must be local) and the computing devices as well as between
 
 file system and the computing devices.  Such computing requirements
 
 will continue to demand that the network contain some smaller
 
 computer centers.  Indeed, important research could be seriously
 
 curtailed if special cases are not given adaquate support;
 
 centralization must not be pressed too far.
 
 
         An opportunity for technology transfer exists in the choice
 
 of operators of the resource centers.  The initial transfer of the
 
 ARPAnet responsibility to DCA, for example, may prove to be an
 
 important step in technology transfer of the network technology to
 
 military communication needs, since it virtually forces DCA to learn
 
 the new technology.  It remains to be seen what the cost, if any, in
 
 deterioration of network services results.
 
 
         Similarly, one might choose the operators of the main resource
 
 centers with several objectives in mind.  For example, if the Digital
 
 Equipment Corporation operated a center we would expect increased
 
 technology transfer of ARPA sponsored research to the commercial
 
 sector.  We believe that in addition to these considerations,
 
 ARPA should choose center operators with ultra high reliability and
 
 lowest cost objectives in mind.
 
 
 
∂14-JUL-75  1331		FOL,RWW
 RE: SET THEORY MINI COURSE
 
 It seems that from an incomplete survey that WED and MON afternoons
 is a good time for some and particuliarly good for me.  It is my 
 intension to meet in my office (unless we don't all fit) regularly on
 WED afternoons at 4:00 til about 6:00.  I would like to start this week 
 so some immediate feedback on this choice would be nice.  A note 
 finalizing this WED will be sent sometime Thusday.  I hope to cover the 
 material below and depending on what the group seems most interested 
 in to weigh it in different ways.  If there is enough interest I might 
 extend this into the fall as there is a lot of things to do.
 
 For factual information about sets I intend use Cohen's
 book as a text and recommend you getting a copy.  Each week I expect
 to cover some section of this book.  In addition each week I will assign 
 some "philosophical" reading in an attempt to shed light on what questions
 were being asked by the people who found the currently popular axiom 
 systems.  This reading is supposed to be fairly simple and basically 
 non technical.  People will be free in addition to "volunteer" to
 present the contents of slightly more technical papers.
 
 The main interest of this course for AI will involve looking at the 
 various axiomatizations of set theory and finding out what features
 of each are useful in a computational environment.  This hopefully
 will lead to a set of set theoretic principles that make doing 
 mathematics on a computer more "straightforward", that is, more in
 line with mathematical practice.
 
 Hopefully by summers end you will know the basic differences between
 Zermelo,Zermello-Fraenkel,Godel-Bernays-von Neumann,and Kelly-Morse 
 set theory, as well as something about FOL.

∂14-JUL-75  1328		FOL,RWW
 COURSE.INF

∂13-JUL-75  1429		THE,AJT
 I've taken the liberty (again!) of giving yr. name as a reference for
 a  chap  called  Garey  who  will  probably  write  to you  from  the
 Universite de Lausanne. As I mentioned to you, Sloman has  offered me
 a job, but if it can be worked out, I would prefer to take a job with
 Garey  (a) because  I want  to return  to working  on neurophysiology
 (Garey is interested, as  am I, in applications of  vision techniques
 to  biological images),  and (b)  because the  job  probably wouldn't
 start until  Jan.1976, which  would mean  more time  for me  to do  a
 better job on my thesis. 
 	If/when Garey  writes,  I'd appreciate  it very  much if  you
 could reply just  as soon as possible, since Sloman is breathing down
 my neck for a decision. 
 	Thanks a lot. Arthur. 

∂13-JUL-75  0922		100,100: NARC @ SAIL
 COMING SOON, TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD FOODPUSHERS, TURKEY JERKY!

∂13-JUL-75  0635		S,WD (reminder)
 6:00PM Garbage goes out tonight.

∂11-JUL-75  1637		network site SRI
 Date: 11 JUL 1975 1634-PDT
 From: RAPHAEL at SRI-AI
 Subject: IJCAI
 To:   PHW at MIT-AI, EJS at SU-AI, JMC at SU-AI, LES at SU-AI
 cc:   RAPHAEL
 
 
 	I just received a letter from Regina Bublil, Director, BACSJ.
 She writes that she has discussed the 4IJCAI situation with other groups
 in the East, and they   "feel that both the 'boycott' and the 'action in
 Tbilisi' are good actions, but there is no question that going to the
 Soviet Union would be much more constructive for all the reasons that we
 discussed."  Although they will take no immediate action to oppose the 
 Minker letter, the BACSJ (and their colleagues elsewhere in the country)
 would appreciate an opportunity to invite proposed IJCAI attendees to
 "briefings" about the current situation in Russia, possible actions and
 their likely effects, and so on.  Having taken such a briefing, I believe
 these briefings are well worthwhile, presenting a reasoned, practical view
 of how best to preserve humanistic values without engaging in any illegal
 activities and without endangering the scientific goals of the conference.
 Can you (Erik or Pat) send me a mailing list of Americans likely to attend
 the conference--e.g., authors and preregistrants-- that I may deliver to
 Regina?  I'm sure she would agree to clear any material with us before
 sending it to the list, if you thought such a condition were necesary.
 	She also asks if we can find out what scientific publications,
 if any, are likely to be represented at 4IJCAI.  (She will find out about
 the wire services.)  'Science' and 'Datamation' come to mind as 
 possibilities.  Would you call them to find out?  Are you aware of any other
 possible press interest?
 	For your information, Lerner's biography:
 "Alexander Lerner, born 1919, married with 2 children.  Doctor of
 Technical Sciences, was employed at Institute of Control Sciences of the
 Academy of Sciences of the USSR, he applied for emigration in June 1971."
 
 		Bert
 
 -------

∂11-JUL-75  0840		network site RAND
 JOHN,
 
 I GOT YOUR LETTER JUST AS I SENT OUT THE εINALVERSION
 OF OUR COMMITTEE REPORT TO EVERYONE.  (I SENT THE STANFORD
 COPY TO LES.)  I PRESUME YOU ARE BACK AT STANFORD NOW.
 DO YOU WANT ME TO MAIL ANOTHER COPY TO YOU DIRECTLY?
 
 REGARDS,
 PETER

∂10-JUL-75  1308		S,LES
 I have a copy of the letter that Minker plans to send to SIGART members,
 if you are interested.

∂10-JUL-75  1126		network site CMUA
 From: ALLEN NEWELL (A310AN02)@CMUA
 Date: Wednesday, July 9, 1975 at 9:23 P.M. EDT
 Subject: Response
 To:   JMC@SU-AI
 - - - -
 John: Welcome back. Hope trip was a good one.
 
 (1) Heilmeier  seems to  be firmly  in the  helm at  ARPA.    He
 gradually seems  to eventually approve things  but it is hassle,
 hassle, delay, delay.
 
 (2) For instance, we (CMU) have finally been approved (about mid
 June for  a 1  July contract  date) by  Heilmeier and  thus  are
 transiting  the rest  of  the  process after  our  contract  has
 expired.  We took about a  20% cut on our  proposed amount which
 was somewhat in excess of our last years proposal level, but did
 get  a  bit  more  funding  for  some  work  in  multiple  micro
 computers.  However, we  went  in  for 18  months  (re  extended
 government fiscal year) but  Heilmeier would approve for only 12
 months.   It appears that  this  was  due primarily  to  our  AI
 component,  hence related  to your  6 months  bit.  However, no
 specific instructions came with it. Arpa is no good at feedback.
 
 (3) There  is a  JASON  study on  AI going  on at  LaJolla  this
 summer.  Saul  Amarel is involved heavily; Ed F  is also and you
 can get more info from him. Heilmeier specifically requested it.
 
 (4)  There is no  collective action going  on that I  know of. I
 suspect part  of the  reason is  that the  spring made  everyone
 relatively  refractory. I  have  been  fighting with  a  set  of
 analogous problems with Heilmeier and the SUS program. It is, in
 my humble estimation, the very model of a good APRA program. But
 Heilmeier is hassling it continuously. (Eg, why do we need three
 system contractors,  why not cut back to two.  this gets laid to
 rest, then  re-emerges, then laid to rest, then  ...) I have had
 essentially  neither  time  nor energy  to  devote  to  creative
 strategies for AI.
 
 (5) As you  know there is an AI panel for  COSERS, which Ed F is
 nominal chairman and Terry W is a member. COSERS is presenting a
 descriptive  (non evaluative and non  proposing) resport to NSF.
 But  it will be something  NSF will use as  a resource document.
 Hence AI report plays some role in going to NSF for much more AI
 funds.
 
 (6) As  far as I know,  nothing has happened at  ARPA or IPTO on
 contacting NSF relative to transfer of some AI research to NSF.
 
 (7)  Lick seems to  be coasting in  the sense that  he no longer
 believes he  can influence Heilmeier in a major  way. So he told
 me he  is simply  disagreeing  with him  at all  the  junctures,
 trying to  tell him why and letting the  chips drift downward as
 they wist.
 
 (8) Lick is  returning to MIT in September as  far as I know. It
 appears that  Heilmeier  will obtain  someone from  industry  to
 replace  him. I  think the  result is  totally unpredictable. By
 that I do not mean necessarily bad, I mean unpredictable.
 
 A.N.
 
 -------
 
∂09-JUL-75  2253		ACT,REG
 By the way, a file of yours, VOR1[1,JMC], is clobbered, and
 has been clobbered since at least November 1972, since the DART tape of
 that date has only a clobbered version.

∂09-JUL-75  1104		network site SRI
 Date:  9 JUL 1975 1102-PDT
 From: RAPHAEL at SRI-AI
 Subject: IJCAI
 To:   EJS at SU-AI, JMC at SU-AI, EARNEST at SU-AI,
 To:   PHW at MIT-AI
 cc:   RAPHAEL
 
 
 	I spoke yesterday with a representative of the Bay Area Council on
 Soviet Jewry (BACSJ), and with Minker's assistant in Maryland.  Minker is 
 on vacation and apparently not returning calls.  Here is my perception of
 the situation, as a result of those conversations:
 
 	1.  BACSJ, certain related organizations elsewhere in the country,
 and Minker's "Concerned Scientists" group, seem to have a long standing
 (and somewhat uneasy) agreement not to interfere with each other's
 activities.  BACSJ think that Minker's proposed letter is a bad idea,
 but they will take no action to prevent or oppose it.  They hope that 
 "the scientists" (we) can convince him not to send it.
 	2.  The Concerned Scientists do not expect, and probably do not
 even hope, that their campaign to move the conference will result in the
 conference actually being moved.  Their goal is to get publicity, to 
 increase awareness of the plight of Soviet Jews and the irresponsibility
 of official Soviet promises, in the minds of both
 the general public and the scientific community.  They believe they can
 best achieve this goal by having some people (them) oppose going to Russia,
 while others (us) go and protest there.  Although this plan sounds 
 vaguely inconsistent to me, I'm afraid they may be right.
 	3.  The letter was being reproduced yesterday, and will go out 
 today assuming ACM provides them with the SIGART mailing list.  Since
 ACM Council recently passed an anti-Russian resolution, I expect that
 the mailing list will be provided, the letter will go out, and Erik and
 Pat may have to answer a flood of resulting inquiries (sigh).  But I doubt
 whether a significant number of travel plans will be changed.
 	4.  BACSJ recommends that the wire John is now drafting express
 our deep concern, but not explicitly threaten any protest action.  The 
 rationale is that too strong a statement now, aside from damaging the
 general atmosphere for the conference, could result in Soviet steps
 to bar reporters and restrict conference activities, thereby reducing
 the effectiveness of any potential protest that does take place.
 
 I'm still trying to reach Minker, but don't expect any success-- at least
 until after the letter is mailed.
 		Bert
 -------

∂09-JUL-75  1043		ESS,JMC (reminder)
 ARPA network mail to newell at CMU-10A -- ok

∂07-JUL-75  1904		S,LES
 Discussion of ongoing plans for IJCAI on Wednesday, July 9, at 2pm
 in A.I. Conference Room.
 CC: RF;RCB;TOB;DRB;DBL;CCG;BLF;JMC;DES;EJS

∂07-JUL-75  0932		1,MSW @ USCT
 I HAVE RECEIVED YOUR MESSAGE.  THINGS ARE STILL THE SAME
 I AM ALSO TOLKING TO WINSTON ON THE SAME SUBJECT, AND DELAYED
 ANY DECISION UNTIL I WILL HEAR FROM YOU.  WINSTON WILL BE DOWN AT
 CALTECH ON THE 16 TH TO DISCUSS THE MATTER.
 I WILL CALL WED. 10AM, UNLESS I HEAR FROM YOU BEFORE THEN.

∂06-JUL-75  2342		1,MSW @ USCT
 I WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU, OR TALK OVER THE PHONE IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
 PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU WANT ME TO COME TO STANFORD, OR ELSE,
 
 PLEASE SET A TELEPHONE
 APPOINTMENT.  THANKS.

∂06-JUL-75  2228		105,SGK @ AI
 My plans are to start for Calif by auto about July 16.  Do I still have
 a room, and am I still welcome around the lab.  I plan to finish the CUSP manual, do a little
 more work on the new Dired, and relax a bit.  That should about take care of the summer.

∂06-JUL-75  1517		REV,REF
 -- APPROXIMATLEY 2650 STEPS IN THE OLD PROOF

∂01-JUL-75  2035		ACT,REG
 Philip Shaw, a former student of yours, wants information about the early
 development of computer games (i.e., spacewar).  (When you're back from
 Japan) could you call him at 433-4150 (in San Francisco)?    Ralph

∂01-JUL-75  1317		1,EJS
 Received your telegram and talked to Pat W about it. He has polled the
 conference committee and the majority recognizes the seriousness of the
 situation butwants to proceed more carefully. We therefore postponed 
 sending the proposed telgram to Keldysh until we can all talk it over.
  Erik
 PS Welcome home!

∂30-JUN-75  0952		S,WD
 	Miss Mitchell of American+Express called (602)248-1424.

∂21-JUN-75  1348		S,WD
 	A fellow name A. F. R. (Tony) Brown, who says he met you at MIT in 1958,
 called to say that he can offer us a 360 based programming system for machine 
 translation work.  His address is: 536 Lowell Ave. Palo Alto, 327-0436.  

∂04-JUN-75  2112		227,DEW
 Please read JMC[REP,DEW].  It tells what I'm up to.

∂16-APR-75  0955		network site CMUA
 **** FTP mail from [A310AN02] (NEWELL)
 o: Licklider @ ISI
 rom: Newell @ CMU-10A
 ate: 16 Apr 75
 e: AI ROAD MAP MEETING
 C: Carlstrom @ ISI, Fields @ ISI, Russell @ ISI, Simon @ CMU-10A
    JMC @ SU-AI, LES @ SU-AI, CCG @ SU-AI, PHW @ MIT-AI, 
    Feigenbaum @ ISI, Amarel @ ISI, Nilsson @ SRI-AI, 
    Sacerdoti @ SRI-AI
 
 ick:   Twenty-four  hours  has  permitted some  reflections  on
 onday's session and the problems attendent thereto.
 
 1)  To  repeat  what was  generally  accepted,  implicitly  and
 xplicitly, by  the AI  scientists at  the meeting:       It  is
 ppropriate, given the current general context and specific ARPA
 ontext, for  the AI field to attempt  a series of applications.
 uch  applications would  be a good  thing for  AI generally, as
 ell as for its specific relations with DoD.
 
 2)  Also  to repeat:       Application  opportunities  must  be
 iscovered, verified  and exploited.    Some institutional means
 ust  be found to  expedite this.  For  it is clear  that the AI
 ommunity  by  itself  does  not  have  the  expertise  nor  the
 onnections  to find high payoff  activities.   Dave Russell, at
 he end of the day,  strongly posited a mechanism of a Rand-like
 gency  with the  mission of  finding application opportunities,
 erifying them,  building a bridge to the  AI Labs, etc.   There
 ould also  exist, as  an adjunct  to this,  an AI  Applications
 echnical   Group   (or  some   such   title),   consisting   of
 epresentatives  of the  various Labs, CMU,  MIT, SRI-AI, SU-AI,
 U-HP, plus  maybe others in related  programs, such as BBN-SUS,
 DC-SUS, Amarel, etc.  This group would  be  a prime  forum  and
 nitiation point for these applications.        I expressed some
 oncern that such an agent could come into being in short enough
 rder to  satisfy  the  needs of  the  day (implying  that  some
 emporary vehicle would have  to be erected), but Russell seemed
 onfident that  such expedients  were unnecessary.  It would  be
 etter his way.
 
 3) It  is extremely important to be sure  that the payoffs of a
 pecific  application  are  real.     It  is  too  easy  to  get
 andbagged  to have a  seeming application turn  to dross. Given
 hat  ARPA is  prepared  to  spend  large fractions  of  its  AI
 ommunity (a  relatively precious  resource) on  producing  some
 pecific  applications, it is critical  to substantiate the need
 nd acceptability  of  an  application.    ARPA  itself,  though
 nside the DoD and much closer to the application sites than the
 I   community,  does   not  itself  have   the  expertise  and,
 mportantly, the  time to examine the  situations enough to make
 eliable assessements.
 
 4) To be concrete, on reflection I am not at all convinced that
 he items on Heilmeier's list  are all really in the category of
 enuine  application opportunities.    I cannot  speak about the
 SW  problem, since that  is not  a single problem,  but many --
 amely, the question of where  to apply AI techniques all up and
 own  a complex  system.  But the  other two  are bitty problems
 imed at  highly specific targets. I did not  get any sense that
 PRA really  knew in  detail whether  the payoffs  were real  or
 imply  ephemeral, momentary opinions  of one or  two high level
 eople in  the organizations  connected with  the  applications.
 eilmeier's carriage-trade  philosophy  requires a  really  good
 arketing  and marketing research  arm if it is  to succeed.  It
 ill do ARPA no good if it squanders its substance on a bunch of
 rrelevant  mirages.   The  military scene is  littered with the
 ead bones  of expensive solutions which  were only monuments to
 omeone's folly.
 
 5) It appears that MIT-MAC is already spending substantial sums
 relative to the apparent size of the problem) on the Morse-code
 roblem.  Surely  it would not be fruitful  for the AI community
 o  get further involved in  that one.  I am  not quite sure why
 his  one showed up on  Heilmeier's list, but maybe  it was just
 eant to be illustrative of what ARPA had no decided to do.
 
 6)  On the language-spotting  task, I need to  reiterate what I
 aid  at the  meeting.            First, I  do not  think the AI
 abs (in counterdistinction to  the SUS Labs) should take on the
 roblem,  they  simply  would  have to  build  up  much  of  the
 xpertise that  the SUS  Labs  have, which  would be  a  genuine
 uplication.  Second,  I consider  that the  SURG has  not  been
 sked to consider taking on that task. I agree that you possibly
 entioned   it  to  the   SUSC  (though  I   have  forgotten  it
 ompletely), but since it was not brought up in the context of a
 erious confrontation  with the SUS 5-year goals,  I do not take
 t as a serious proposal. It would have been derilict of any SUS
 roup to take on the  task, given how tightly the SUS program is
 trapped down to the 5 year goals.
 
  do  believe we can consider this task  and, if it is important
 nough, we can consider  folding it into the present contractors
 n some way.  But we do have to face the potential effect on the
 -year goals and to see how to work around them.  As chairman of
 he SUSC, I  am quite willing to go around  on that issue, but I
 eed a signal from you  or Dave Carlstom that indicates you want
 o  do that. This is  a serious point and  proposal I am making,
 ince I do not want  to be accused later of having fiddled while
 ome burned -- of having  not picked up this problem when it was
 mportant to  do so.      I  would like  some feedback  on  this
 pecific  matter.            The  problem  itself  seems  rather
 traightforward, given the current art.  I would estimate half a
 an  year for the technical  work, if done at  CMU given all the
 acilities.  To this must be added the whole custumer interface,
 hich might be as much again. Much depends on details which I do
 ot  know, of course (eg,  how must it be  packaged and how much
 ust it cost).  If the problem could wait until after Nov76, you
 ould  surely get  it taken  on by  the SUS  Labs if  it were as
 mportant as Heilmeier stipulates.
 
 7) Another  example of a SUS-related  application is the Korean
 n-line  communication aid,  which you  raised as  a problem and
 hich I  suggested a solution approach to some  time ago.   I do
 ot know  what became of that.  Again, it  would be derilict for
 he  SUS community to  fold that in without  at least explicitly
 acing the 5 year goals. All this stem, of course, from the fact
 hat  we  (read: ARPA  and  possibly  Newell-cum-SURG-initiator)
 anted  a  program   tightly  fixed  on  impressive  goals,  and
 herefore not  with much  slack  for such  things. Again,  I  am
 illing to consider this.
 
 8)  I cannot  believe that the  CBC is not  on the  track of an
 mportant  application.  It  has two  things wrong  with it: (1)
 here is  not an immediate customer eager and  ready to pay; (2)
 otwithstanding SRI's  search, there  does not  seem to  be  one
 iding out  there quite yet (though I do  not know how intensive
 hat search was or is).   Yet, it does not seem to me profitable
 - for  ARPA, even  on its  own current  terms --  to jerk  that
 ffort  up at  the roots and  radically redirect  it.  Rather it
 eems to me critical to widen the scope to "Real-time operations
 onsulting" (namely, how to  help someone carry out an operation
 n real  time) and to search for  applications within this wider
 phere.   The core of work  on the CBC remains  in fact strongly
 elevant; and the new applications can be grafted on.
 
 9) What  should go in the  Road Map? It seems  clear to me that
 he  Road  Map  for Friday  has  its  action  component  defined
 ndependently of  its  substantive  component.     To  wit,  the
 ormation  of the application-finding  mechanism, defined above,
 ill  not be  justified, nor  require justification,  from the a
 tatement of the current art or a statement of future scientific
 oals.  However, this application proposal  will differ from all
 ther such attempts by  the promise, implicitly extracted at the
 eeting, by the AI Labs to enter into such an application-search
 holeheartedly.
 
 he  substantive mode must  perhaps still be  there by Saturday.
 ou don't have much to work with, in terms of what was generated
 efore and during the meeting.  Thus, I would attempt to get the
 ction component to stand in  for the rest.  Let me discuss each
 f  the substantive components  a little, and then  come back to
 his.
 
 10) When a set of the worlds best scientists, being asked about
 he  their very  own scientific domain,  becomes tongue-tied and
 roduces answers unsatisfactory  in a first year qualifier, then
 he conclusion is not that the science doesn't exist, it is that
 he  question  was  posed wrongly  or  the  situation  inhibited
 dequate  response.    You  asked us,  I think,  to do something
 nder constraints that communicated:  (1) that none of our prior
 ttempts was to be considered satisfactory -- that something new
 nd  different  was  required;  (2) that  we  adopt  a  form  of
 pecification of results and  of expectations that is foreign to
 S and  AI, and largely foreign to science  (namely, to state in
 dvance the content of  the scientific results to be expected up
 o several years in the future, so that the questions would only
 e whether or when the result would be attained.  This pre-empts
 he science and leaves us tongue-tied).
 
 or instance, in the CMU proposal I have just finished writing a
 tatement  about the  basic scientific  questions of  AI and the
 igh level propositions that characterize what we have found out
 n  AI.  Apparently that is  to be discarded as  not adequate or
 ppropriate  to the  task  --  and  I  am to  find  yet  another
 tatement,  different from that,  that is to be  adequate to the
 ew (yet identical) task.
 
 or instance, Nils has  just finished writing a paper (IFIPS 74)
 evoted to a  summary of what AI has done  and what areas it has
 orked in. Apparently that is to be discarded as not adequate to
 he task -- and Nils  is to find yet another statment, different
 rom  that, that  is to  be adequate  to the  new (yet idenical)
 ask.
 
 et  me   strongly  suggest,  for  instance,   that  as  far  as
 haracterizing the  present state is concerned,  you take a copy
 f Nils  IFIPS  paper and  underline in  red  the items  in  the
 ibliography that are done in  the ARPA AI Labs, and on the many
 harts  that draw a  map of the  area, circle in  red these same
 tems.  This will give (1)  a direct picture of the coverage and
 cope of the field of AI that ARPA has given birth to; and (2) a
 irect  picture of the  extent to which ARPA  is responsible for
 hese results and for the important ones.
 
 et me  further suggest that you put in  front of Nils paper the
 irst  section on AI  goals from  the CMU proposal,  as giving a
 igh level coherent picture of  what AI as a science is striving
 o achieve and what in global terms it has found out.
 
 hese two items answer  only the question:  What are the results
 n AI in its own scientific terms.  They do not answer it fully,
 ut they will do as well as what you can put together in yet one
 ore attempt in a few hours.
 
 12)  I do  believe that  several additional  descriptions of AI
 cientific results  are possible  that will  appear to  be  more
 atisfactory to upper ARPA than the two above items (if, indeed,
 nything  is   satisfactory).    I   cannot  carry   out   these
 escriptions in the time available, indeed I think it would take
   couple of months of  very hard work (maybe  more).  But I can
 ketch and  illustrate one part of it (which  is indeed based on
 ast efforts to systemitize).
 
 rogress in  AI proceeds  in terms  of increases  in  scientific
 nowledge about the various components of the intelligent agent,
 omponents that are  defined functionally.  A standard division,
 hich corresponds in part to Nilsson's core areas, is:
 
 > Recognition and description (Perception)
    > Vision
    > Speech
    > Language
 > Representation
 > Problem Solving Methods
 > Control Structure
 > Assimilation & Accomodation (Learning)
 
 ithin  each component one  can describe a  series of structures
 or mechanisms) that  are possibilities for this component.  The
 iscovery of each such structure and mechanism is an advance for
 I and  a  result.  Verification,  of  course, is  required;  it
 omes,  usually, from  incoroporation in  several total systems.
 nowledge  about each  mechanism grows  with experimentation and
 heoretical  sharpening.  Such knowledge,  again  when  verified
 xperimentally,  constitutes  scientific results  for  AI.    It
 onsists mostly  of  statements of  adequacy or  sufficiency  in
 pecific task environments.
 
 hus, the statement "What are the results of AI" at a given date
 s  a listing  of the  various mechanisms  (usually described by
 onventional technical names), plus the associated statements of
 dequacy.  This  list grows  over time,  and it,  rather than  a
 arametrization of how good are the systems that can be produced
 onstitutes the core transferable knowledge of AI.  This core is
 ndeed  transferrable,  precisely because  it  consists  of  the
 bstracted mechanisms which have been shown experimentally to be
 seful in several task environments.
 
  cannot  produce the  lists  of results  for the  total  field,
 ostly  because  they  have not  been  extracted,  labelled  and
 rganized  in this way.   I can do  it for one  subpart, that of
 roblem solving  methods.  Here, much that we  know can be given
 y  specific methods  (analagous  to  the methods  of  numerical
 nalysis).  A fairly good list is:
 
 > Generate and test
 > Hill climibing
 > Heuristic search
    > Search stragegy:
       > Depth first, Breadth first, Best first, 
         Progressive Deepening
    > Evaluation
       > Evaluation functions, level of aspiration, 
         duplication avoidance, external limits
 > Matching
 > Hypothosize and match
 > Means ends analysis
 > Substitute & eliminate
 > Range restriction
 > Abstraction planning
 
 o  find a  short  way  to say  what  we  know, eg,  about  Hill
 limbing, takes more energy than I have at this wee hour.  We do
 now  the major  things  to  beware of  (Multi-modality,  Mesas,
 idges, Cliffs),  we do have some empirical  things to say about
 hen  Hill Climbing seems  to work  and when it  doesn't.  We do
 ave a  way of  classifying the  refinements of  the method  (as
 implifed models  of the  hill, which  are used  to predict  the
 ptimum hill-step to take). And so on.
 
 he  existence  of  this  list implies  a  large  kit  of  tools
 vailable  to be  used  in  applications, and  indeed,  when  Ed
 eigenbaum  says they  used "standard  AI" in  Dendral, he means
 hat  the techniques in  Dendral pretty much are  drawn from the
 ist of such known and characterized methods.
 
 o  plot the  success of  the Problem  Solving Methods component
 ver time  is  to watch  this list  grow  and/or the  amount  of
 nowledge about each such component grow.
 
  do  not know how much  each of the other  components can be so
 haracterized, though I expect it could be pushed quite far. But
 ot tonight!
 
 13) Future  goals  of  AI must  be  in  general to  extend  the
 echanisms and structures of each area and to show that they are
 dequate to wider and  more difficult problems.  The discover of
  new method  is not to be asserted in advance  as a goal, if it
 ould then the new  method would have been found!  Sometimes one
 nows  enough about a method  or structure to specify  as a goal
 hat it is  to be explored. To find the  true scope of the range
 estriction method, is such a (small) goal.
 
 oals, in the sense that you (read: ARPA) want them, are only to
 e associated with systems or with instruments (Physics has such
 oals  for the  energy  of  interactions its  accelerators  will
 each,  or the resolution  of microscopes).  There  has not been
 ny  difficulty,  as  far  as I  know,  in  determining  how  to
 arametrize the  structure and  performance of  specific  narrow
 lasses of  systems (such as SUSs  or Dendral-like systems) when
 he task  comes close  enough to  feasibility to  make it  worth
 dopting  a system  as an  AI goal.  It  can surely  be done for
 arious  other specific classes  of systems, though  it will not
 over, thereby, all of AI's goals.
 
 I have run out of gas  here -- I believe more can be said about
 tating AI pure goals, but it just escapes my fog-bound mind.  I
 ove on.]
 
 14)  Applied goals, I  believe are to  be stated in  one of two
 ays.  These  provide other ways of describing  what AI has done
 n terms of how it can contribute to these goals.
 
 ne  way is  how we  started out  to do  it at  the meeting.  An
 pplied system is posited  (ie, a total military system, such as
 n ASW system). Then,  within that some points of AI application
 re found,  from which one attempts to derive  the AI that might
 ake a difference.   This is a form of systems analysis, and one
 hat can lead to a backward chain of available relevant research
 esults and,  as  well, of  still  needed research  --  methods,
 tructures, knowledge, experimentation,  , etc. needed to do the
 ob.  I  think we should do a substantial  amount of this, and I
 elieve  quite satisfactory  road-map results would  come out of
 t.    Unfortuneately,  I believe  that the  effort per  complex
 otal  system must  be a summer  study-group sort  of thing, ie,
 bout  what we  put into  the SUS  initial report.   But this is
 xactly what  is to be done by this  Rand-like agency (plus some
 f us).
 
 he second  way is  to specify  applied technologies.   The  two
 rototypic examples  at hand are the notion  of a SUS technology
 nd  (more pertinent) the natural  language front-end technology
 hat we all were talking about.  One can take the development of
 uch a  technology as a goal and describe  both what existing AI
 lready provides  and what  new research  is needed  to get  it.
 his can  be carried  out  much more  within the  AI  community,
 hough some  sense for what is really  required to make specific
 pplications go  is important. But again, it  takes a fair sized
 ffort to lay out  such a technological alternative.    We could
 ommission such  explorations.   (It would depend,  I guess,  on
 pper ARPA being prepared to consider such expansions.)
 
 15) We did assert rather strongly that there have been a number
 f  civilian applications of  AI, eg, in  management science, in
 esign, etc.  Ferreting these out and asking whether any of them
 ould be  applied to  military systems  would be  an  additional
 mportant  task for  this applications  organization (along with
 ome of us). This, of course, is yet one other way of stating AI
 esults.
 
 ******
 
  am really  to the end of my rope  tonight (this morning) and I
 ill send this  out after Herb gets a chance  to look it over. I
 m willing to work on  expanding or modifying any piece of this.
  am pretty much around from here through the weekend.
 
 .N.
 
 .S.   Recall  that  I am  expecting  feedback on  the  Language
 potting issue.