COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00005 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	/FONT#0=BASL30/FONT#1=BASI30/FONT#2=NGR40
C00003 00003	↓↓↓↓α↓α↓ β
C00004 00004	↓ ↓H
C00010 00005	Dear Bernard:
C00011 ENDMK
C⊗;
/FONT#0=BASL30/FONT#1=BASI30/FONT#2=NGR40
↓↓↓↓α↓α↓ β
STANFORD ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE LABORATORY
↓ ∧αDEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE
↓ ¬	STANFORD UNIVERSITY
↓ ∧;STANFORD, CALIFORNIA 94305
↓↓
↓ ↓H

↓ ↓H

↓ ↓H

↓ ↓H

↓ ↓H

↓ ↓H

↓ ↓H

↓ ↓H
↓ α_↓ αh↓ β8↓ ∧λ↓ ∧X↓ ¬(↓ ¬xApril 9, 1974
↓ ↓H

↓ ↓H

↓ ↓H

↓ ↓H

↓ ↓H

↓ ↓H
↓ ↓H
/FONT#0=BASL30/FONT#1=BASI30/FONT#2=NGR40
Bernard Meltzer
↓ ↓H
Metamathematics Unit
↓ ↓H
Edinburgh University
↓ ↓H
9 Hope Park Square, Meadow Laane
↓ ↓H
Edinburgh EH8 9NW Scotland
↓ ↓H

↓ ↓H
Dear Bernard;
↓ ↓H

↓ ↓H
↓ α_Here at long last is the Lighthill review.  It was much more work
↓ ↓H
than I expected.
↓ ↓H

↓ ↓H

↓ ↓H

↓ ↓H

↓ ↓H

↓ ↓H

↓ ↓H
↓ α_↓ αh↓ β8↓ ∧λ↓ ∧X↓ ¬(↓ ¬xBest Regards,
↓ ↓H

↓ ↓H

↓ ↓H

↓ ↓H
↓ α_↓ αh↓ β8↓ ∧λ↓ ∧X↓ ¬(↓ ¬xJohn McCarthy
↓ ↓H
↓ α_↓ αh↓ β8↓ ∧λ↓ ∧X↓ ¬(↓ ¬xDirector, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
↓ ↓H
↓ α_↓ αh↓ β8↓ ∧λ↓ ∧X↓ ¬(↓ ¬xProfessor of Computer Science
↓ ↓H
.require "let.pub" source file
.<<
.FONT 1 "basl30"; TURN ON "%";
.FONT 2 "BASI30";
.FONT 3 "basb30";
.FONT 4 "sta200";
.FONT 5 "ngb25";
.>>
∂AIL Bernard Meltzer↓Metamathematics Unit↓Edinburgh University↓9 Hope Park Squared
↓Meadow Lane↓Edinburgh EH8 9NW Scotland∞

Dear Bernard:

  	As you see, I have returned to Stanford.  Would you like a short
review of Newborn's %3Computer chess%1?  I want to raise the issue of what
should be written about chess programs.

.reg
.require "let.pub" source file;
.<<
.FONT 1 "basl30"; TURN ON "%";
.FONT 2 "BASI30";
.FONT 3 "basb30";
.FONT 4 "sta200";
.FONT 5 "ngb25";
.>>
.FONT 6 "SUP";
∂AILProfessor Bernard Meltzer 
↓Professor Donald Michie∞

Gentlemen:

	I have received letters from both of you and from Harry Barrow,
and I feel it is now time for me to make my Solomon-like proposal -
decision being almost certainly too strong a word.  However, this is
all you will get from me, since I don't want to put more time on it.

	First of all, I want to decide the narrowest possible question -
what to do about the present issue rather than a general editorial
policy about how institutional affiliations should be recorded.
The policy Donald cites seems reasonable to me, but I haven't canvassed
editors of other scientific journals enough to know if it is universal.
If a proposal from me about general policy were wanted, I would say
copy the policy of %2Nature%1 if you can get them to say what it is,
choosing %2Nature%1 as a respectable journal whose policy I don't know
but which probably isn't involved in a current controversy about it.

	As to the present situation, since Michie and Barrow both think
there should be some corrigendum, let's do it.  I suggest the following
corrigendum:

	"There has been a complaint about the description of the institutional
affiliations of the authors of the paper "A Versatile System for
Computer-Controlled Assembly" by Ambler, Barrow, and Popplestone
published in the Summer 1975 issue of %2Artificial Intelligence%1.
The editors were too hasty in their way of taking into account
the reorganization of AI work at the University of Edinburgh.
It would have been better to have given the affiliation as
Department of Machine Intelligence with a footnote saying that
the authors are now with the Department of Artificial Intelligence."

	If I had another hour to spend on it, perhaps I could do better,
but the machine is going down in 4 minutes and 8 seconds.

.sgn
cc: Dr. Harry Barrow
    Dr. Bertram Rafael
Dear Bernard:

	I value your work as the editor of %2Artificial Intelligence%1 more than
I value my opinion of how to correctly resolve this dispute.

	Since my attempt to do good produced more heat than light, I hereby
offer to review an extra paper.

					Sincerely yours,
cc. B. Raphael, D. Michie