LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA (07/26/85)
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI> AIList Digest Friday, 26 Jul 1985 Volume 3 : Issue 98 Today's Topics: Queries - Lisp for Commodore 128 & AI Management & CS Taxonomy & AI Databases & Geometry Survey & Space Planning, AI Tools - ITP & Symbolics LISP/PROLOG, Programming Languages - Interlisp Comments, Games - Psychological Strategies ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Jul 85 10:42 EDT From: Emanuel.henr@Xerox.ARPA Subject: Lisp for Commodore 128 machine. I have been reading this list for some time, and have found it quite informative. I have also been impressed by the informed level of the discussion. I would like to draw upon this now. I just purchased the new Commodore 128 machine. It can run CPM-80, and read IBM System 34 format disks (& Kaypro, Osborn disks). I would like to know which of the LISP Packages that are available in this format are the best to get. There seems to be a wide spred of prices across the offered LISPs. Are the expensive ones that much better ? Is one Outstanding ? Is one a best compromise of price and power ? I thank you in advance for your response. Keith j. Emanuel Xerox/Human Factors. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jul 85 11:11:07 edt From: simmons@EDN-VAX (Bob Simmons) Subject: DCA Query on AI Management At the Defense Communications Agency, we have been laying the groundwork for an in-house AI group, primarily to test and evaluate emerging expert system technology. We are also considering the possibility of expanding to in-house development within the next three to five years. I'm interested in the issues and specific problems that other organizations have faced or expect to face when forming an in-house group. I expect that these problems are quite different from the concerns of a corporation developing a commercial product. In particular, other than questions about the best hardware/software combination, our concerns center on careful selection of a problem domain, management of AI pilot projects, and justification of the effort to upper-level management. As an aside, I found David Prerau's "Selection of an Appropriate Domain for an Expert System" in the latest issue of AI Magazine to be a great springboard into a pool of important questions. We plan on using that article as a guideline for our own interviews with our technical managers. I'd appreciate any input that you have on this matter. If you are going to be at IJCAI, please drop me a quick note and I'll look you up sometime during that week. If not, please respond via electronic mail. If the response warrants a summary (hopefully it will), I'll send a synopsis of the interesting/important observations to AILIST. Bob Simmons Automated Technologies Planning DCA/DCEC Code R802 1860 Wiehle Avenue Reston, VA 22090 ARPANET: simmons@edn-vax.arpa ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jul 85 16:37:54 EDT From: "Dr. Ron Green" (ARO) <green@BRL.ARPA> Subject: Computer Science Taxonomy I would like to find out if there is a generally accepted taxonomy for computer science. The first level of break out that I desire is hardware, software, and AI. I feel that I would like to see two or three levels of detail below this. If there are some taxonomies like this I would appreciate being told about them. The next phase will be soliciting names of persons and their categories of expertise for review of proposals for basic research. Thanks, Ron [There are several such taxonomies. One of the best is the Computing Reviews classification system (published in CACM, January 1982). The various online abstracting services, including those of the defense department, have their own taxonomies, as do the librarians and, no doubt, the NSF and various government statistical agencies. Academics in CS often build taxonomies in support of curriculum development; see, for instance, Schenk and Pinkert's survey in the 1978 National Computer Conference, pp. 1209-1212. -- KIL] ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jul 85 10:15:27 EDT From: Robert.Frederking@CMU-CS-CAD Subject: AI databases? [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.] I'm looking for a declarative knowledge-base to use as a domain for the NL parser I'm working on. It must be frame-oriented and rich in domain knowledge, and preferably should contain intentional information (what the defining features of a particular subset are, for instance) and "common sense" knowledge. (I don't actually expect to find all this in one KB.) Note that I am specifically looking for content, not an empty KR system. I'm already aware of the NLM database. Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jul 85 09:47:46 EDT From: Rob.Woodbury@CMU-CS-CAD Subject: geometry survey [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.] I am doing a survey on computer based representations of geometry in engineering and architecture. The intent of the survey is to collect in one place an overview of all (or as close as possible to all) existing modelling techniques and applications and all current areas of research. Of particular interest is any work on spatial reasoning, motion planning and vision systems. I will make results available. Any pointers would be appreciated. Thanks -rob- ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 1985 15:07:13-EDT From: Bharat.Dave@CMU-CS-CAD Subject: Re: Space Planning Although this pertains to architecture, it would be interesting to hear from others about issues of design and models of descriptions used. Most of the work done in `space planning' in architecture, has concentrated on geometric descriptions and manipulations (which is probably closer to applications in robotics than architecture). Designers employ words, drawings and perceptual notions which have not yet been fully investigated. To put it differently, diagrams are used as a vehicle of statement as well as interpretation of topological and semantic concepts. To go beyond bin-packing spatial layouts, real world knowledge will have to be built into the system (i.e. there are rules which are broadly observed, some others come into play only in certain contexts; some of these are stricter than the others and the rest are pure flights of fancy...). Any of these rules or a combination of them, may be utilized for specifying or evaluating given spatial configuration. And also, some mechanism for alternating between various design-states will have to be built in. Probably, what confuses the most about human designers is the kind of mental representations they use. It seems more like abstract analog models of real spaces and elements than simple surrogate verbal concepts. `Mental Models' (ed.) by Gentner and Stevens has some interesting papers on spatial models used by novices and experts in various domains. --Bharat Dave ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jul 85 14:40:28 edt From: Tom Scott <scott%bgsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa> Subject: ITP, how to order it According to Ross Overbeek (overbeek@anl-mcs), who is one of the developers of Argonne's Logic Machine Architecture/Interactive Theorem Prover (LMA/ITP) and a co-author of "Automated Reasoning" (Wos et al. 1984), you can obtain the software from Numerical Algorithms Group (NAG) at the following address and telephone number: Numerical Algorithms Group 1101 31st Street, Suite 100 Downers Grove, IL 60515 (312) 971-2337 If I remember correctly, the cost of LMA/ITP was $75.00 (seventy-five). One of our logicians, Charlie Applebaum (applebau@bgsu), is working on LMA/ITP with some of the people at Mitre and Argonne, so that may be the reason for the low price charged to BGSU. But I think the $75.00 price is what NAG charges anyone for LMA/ITP, simply to cover the distribution costs. The same software is available from one of the innumerable departments at Argonne National Laboratory for something in the neighborhood of $1050.00 (one thousand fifty). I always thought the federal government was expensive; now I know it is. Jai Guru Dev, Tom Scott UUCP: cbosgd!osu-eddie!bgsuvax!scott Dept. of Math. & Stat. CSNET/ARPANET: scott@bgsu Bowling Green State Univ. ATT: 419-372-2636 Bowling Green OH 43403-0221 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jul 85 09:16 EDT From: Scott Garren <garren@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA> Subject: Symbolics LISP/PROLOG From: Yigal Arens <ARENS@USC-ECLC.ARPA> I'm interested in finding out about implementations of Prolog in Lisp or Lisp in Prolog(?), or any other version of either that allows one to program in both. [...] Symbolics has a Prolog written in Lisp. The 3600 architecture has been expanded with additional instructions that implement backtracking, unification, and cut. We have also extended Lisp with a logic variable data type. The result is a well integrated environment where the user can call back and forth between the languages. All the operating system and networking functions are accessible from Prolog. Symbolics Prolog also offers what we believe is the highest performance of any commercially available Prolog. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jul 85 11:15:36 EDT From: Tim <WEINRICH@RUTGERS.ARPA> Subject: More Interlisp comments Date: Mon, 8 Jul 85 09:50:16 edt From: Eric Nyberg <ehn0%gte-labs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa> Subject: Re: Interlisp Comments I disagree with Steven's conclusion that Interlisp "discourages" comments. The *default environment* handles comments in a discouraging way, but a few lines of code in the init file can remedy the situation. But all he said was that Interlisp "discourages" comments, not that it prohibits them. The default Interlisp environment makes comments about as inconvenient to use as it possibly can without actually prohibiting them. Furthermore, as you yourself admit, the documentation which describes how to change the environment is very difficult to find and use. And no matter how you change the environment, you still have to be careful where you put your comments. (The preferred place for documenting a variable would be right where the variable is declared, which you can't do. My preferred place for documenting a clause of a CONDition is at the beginning of the clause, which you can't do. The nicest place to describe an argument which you're sending to some function would be right after the argument itself, which you can't do. Sometimes I like to include "afterthoughts" at the end of a function which tell how that function might be improved or something, which you can't do.) If this sort of thing does not "discourage" the use of comments, I honestly don't know what it would take for a language to do so. Twinerik ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jul 85 10:06 EDT From: Jong@HIS-BILLERICA-MULTICS.ARPA Subject: Re: Mistakes The recent comment on "mistakes" in chess and the limitation of expert systems to their (narrow) field of expertise brings up an interesting point. Computer-science experts have been trying to win chess championships for years; why aren't they trying to win the World Series of Poker? The answer is simply that in poker, you win or lose less on the basis of the cards in your hand and more on the basis of the expression on your face and your opponents'. The knowledge base for that game goes far beyond the odds of filling an inside straight. The great chess champion Emmanuel Lasker said that chess was not simply a mathematical exercise but a fight, a fight between two people. Lasker was a master of the psychological pressures of the game. He knew when to make a deliberately inferior move that rattled an opponent into thinking Lasker had a prepared variation (one line of play exhaustively studied by one opponent), when really Lasker had nothing planned but a head game. Lasker knew which of his contemporaries to attack and which to play defensively; which knew the openings well and which were end-game masters; and which liked complications and which shied away from them. With this knowledge he became champion. A chess program is not likely to play based on its opponent, because of the programming difficulties involved, and, I suspect, because that is not an attractive line of research for its programmers. Right now, though, human masters are beating chess programs by playing to their weaknesses (for instance, when to jump out of a book opening to the program's disadvantage). In a larger sense, this is probably a discussion of "intuition" as it applied to AI. Obviously, we have a long way to go before we have an expert system that bases its conclusions based to any degree on the fact that the inquiring human has grass on his shoes. [See Scientific American, July 1978, for an article on Nicholas Findler's research into automating poker strategies. I seem to recall that the project ended before a player was developed that could detect and bluff the Mathematically Fair Player. -- KIL] ------------------------------ End of AIList Digest ********************