LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA (11/19/84)
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
AIList Digest Sunday, 18 Nov 1984 Volume 2 : Issue 157
Today's Topics:
Conference - Expert Systems Symposium,
Expert Systems - Skinner,
Algorithms - Scheduling Algorithm Question & Malgorithm,
Logic Programming - Compiling Logic to Functions,
Linguistics - In Praise of Natural Languages,
Seminars - Conceptual Change in Childhood &
Relational Interface, Process Representation &
Partial Winter Schedule at NCARAI,
Course & Conference - Logic, Language, and Computation Meeting
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 26 Oct 1984 9:37:06 EDT (Friday)
From: Marshall Abrams <abrams@mitre>
Subject: Expert Systems Symposium
I am helping to organize a Symposium on Expert Systems in the Federal
Government. In addition to papers, I am looking for people to serve on
the program committee and the conference committee, and to serve as
reviewers and session chairmen. The openings on the conference committee
include local arrangements, publicity, and tutorials.
Please contact me or the program chairman (karma @ mitre) with
questions and suggestions. The call for papers is available
on request.
Marshall Abrams
------------------------------
Date: Friday, 16 Nov 84 11:34:27 EST
From: shrager (jeff shrager) @ cmu-psy-a
Subject: Quote for our times...
"If Skinner were born in our time, he'd have been an expert
systems researcher."
-- Peter Pirolli 11/16/84 in the heat of
an argument.
(Quoted with permission)
------------------------------
Date: 15 Nov 84 11:38:40 EST
From: DIETZ@RUTGERS.ARPA
Subject: Scheduling algorithm questions
[Forwarded from the SRI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]
I want an online algorithm for preemptive scheduling on a single processor
with release times and deadlines (no precedence relations). This problem
is trivial offline, but I want to be able to add new jobs (or determine
they cannot be added) in polylog time. Has anyone looked at this problem?
Paul Dietz (dietz@rutgers)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 84 15:30 CST
From: Boebert@HI-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: Old high-level malgorithm
A (very) early IBM FORTRAN compiler contained the following jewel of an
error message:
"COLUMN cc OF CARD nnnn CONTAINS A 12-4 PUNCH MINUS SIGN INSTEAD OF AN
11 PUNCH MINUS SIGN. CORRECT AND RESUBMIT."
This was a fatal error.
(For the youngsters, "12-4 punch" and "11 punch" refer to the patterns
of holes in a card column; I believe the 12-4 was officially a "dash".
Also, FORTRAN only spoke capital letters; this was an Eisenhower-era
compiler, and shouted at you in proper authoritarian style.)
[Speaking of user-interface styles:
Commodore Grace Hopper tells of the time a Navy (or perhaps just
Pentagon) programming team realized that a computer could "speak German"
if you just replaced JUMP with SPRUNGE, etc. (Even JUMP was a novelty
at this time: it may have been the earliest COBOL compiler prototype.)
They set up a demo and passed around a memo saying "Come see our computer
compile this German program." The brass were not amused at the idea
of an American military computer being trained to speak German, and the
team had to distribute another memo saying that the first was just a
bad joke -- no computer could possibly understand German! -- KIL]
------------------------------
Date: Thu 15 Nov 84 19:31:17-MST
From: Uday Reddy <U-REDDY@UTAH-20.ARPA>
Subject: Compiling logic to functions
To add to my previous message on the topic, the fact that the effect of
logical variables cannot be achieved in functional languages is not a
linguistic limitation but an operational one. Specifically, all logic
predicates are boolean-valued functions. So, all Horn clauses can be
directly translated into function equations.
A :- B1, ..., Bn. => A = and(B1,...,Bn)
A. => A = true
However, in traditional functional languages the translated logic programs
can only be used for rewriting. They cannot be used to solve goals with
variables in them.
If "narrowing" rather than "rewriting" is used as the operational semantics
of functional programs, they too can be used to solve goals and the effect
of logical variables is achieved. For more details, see
Hullot, Canonical forms and unification, Conf. Automated Deduction,
1980.
Lindstrom, Functional programming and the logical variable, to
appear, POPL 85.
Reddy, On the relationship between logic and functional languages,
to appear in, Degroot, Lindstrom, Functional and Logic programming,
Prentice-Hall, 85.
Uday Reddy
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 84 11:01:51 PST
From: April Gillam <gillam@AERO2>
Subject: In Praise of Natural Languages
Rick Briggs raises some very interesting questions about what is a natural
language, so I thought I'd air my views. Natural language, in its broadest
sense, should include any communication between man and/or animal for which
there is an underlying common belief system. I'd even go so far as to
include non-verbal communications. I'm not a linguist, so this is just how
I view the term. When dealing with machine translation, a working
definition restricting it to verbal or written communications of course
makes more sense.
It would be interesting if at some time we could interpret body language
well enough to have a computer analyze what a person says verbally and
bodily. (When pattern recognition has matured!) There are certainly some
people who have the sensitivity and receptiveness to do the interpretation.
Reading of some of Dr. Kubler-Ross's work, it is an amazing
learning experience to see the level of interpretation which she does with
dying patients, many of whom cannot express directly their knowledge of
their imminent death, however they still have a strong desire to
communicate this to someone, using an analogy or some indirect manner. She
writes of a terminally ill man who could not get out of bed without the use
of his cane, who one day said to take the cane away, Shortly after which he
died. This man was letting her know that the time had come. But few, if any
of us pick up on the cues. Do we really expect a computer to do this? It
also points up how vital context is to understanding.
It doesn't seem plausible to me that any language can express ALL "aspects
of the natural world"? In Indian (from India) languages there are words for
levels of consciousness (eg. samadhi), for energy centers of the body (eg.
chakras), etc. In English we have sophisticated words pertaining to
weaponry, to real estate, etc. Do you think an aborigine would have a word
or concept for garbage recycling? (Or coke bottle?) What I'm trying to say
is, language is cultural (as my friend Ellen, an anthropolgist, succinctly
put it).
I find it hard to believe that Sastric Sanskrit, or any other language, can
contain the concepts of all of humanity's experiences. Have we ourselves
experienced enough of our reality to be able to express it, and does the
person we talk to have a common enough set of experiences to interpret what
we say? There are enough misunderstandings when we both speak the same
language, that I doubt another language will render a semantically exact
translation. How can the color scheme be described to the land of the
blind? There is also a flavor to words. For eg., cabron in Spanish, or the
phrase "curses, foiled again" to those of us who've seen the Perils of
Pauline or comic strips.
I don't see it as a virtue, to be able to express oneself unambiguously.
Part of the power and beauty of language is the ability to make
multi-leveled statements, double entendres, analogies, etc.
It's interesting what Bill Frawley says about a change which complicates a
language being compensated by by a simplification elsewhere. On some level
that is aesthetically pleasing, but I have no feel for whether that would
be the case.
In the proceedings of this year's AAAI conf. there was an interesting paper
in which a micro-environment (a context) of words, likely references and
multiple meanings for a particular topic was set up. If the topic was
Italian food, there'd be some notions of restaurants and pizza and such.
Then if the statement "Hold the anchovies" was encountered, it would be
known that it means "Do not put anchovies on the pizza", as opposed to
"Grasp the anchovies in your hand." I don't have the reference handy, but
it looked like a good idea, as well as a lot of work.
- April Gillam
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 84 14:40:54 pst
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
Subject: Seminar - Conceptual Change in Childhood
BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
Fall 1984
Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237A
TIME: Tuesday, November 20, 11 - 12:30
PLACE: 240 Bechtel Engineering Center
DISCUSSION: 12:30 - 2 in 200 Building T-4
SPEAKER: Susan Carey; MIT Psychology Department;
Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral
Sciences
TITLE: ``Conceptual Change in Childhood''
ABSTRACT: In the tradition of recent Cognitive Studies
tutorials, this paper is a tutorial on the
proper description of cognitive development.
At issue is the status of the claim that
young children think differently from older
children and adults. This claim is often
contrasted with the claim that children
differ from adults merely in knowing less.
I review the kinds of phenomena that parti-
cipants in the debate take as relevant to
deciding the issue. Finally, I argue that a
third position, in which the phenomenon of
conceptual change is taken seriously, avoids
the pitfalls of the original Piagetian posi-
tion while allowing for its successes.
I exemplify the third position by sketching
a recently completed case study of the emer-
gence of biology as an independent domain of
intuitive theorizing in the first decade of
life. I will conclude by raising the ques-
tion of the relation between conceptual
change in childhood and conceptual change in
the history of science.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 84 18:41:04 cst
From: briggs@ut-sally.ARPA (Ted Briggs)
Subject: Seminar - Relational Interface, Process Representation
[Forwarded from the UTexas-20 bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]
ROSI: A UNIX Interface for the Discriminating User
by
Mark Roth
Srinivasan Sundararajan
noon Friday Nov. 16
PAI 3.38
ROSI ( Relational Operating System Interface ) strives to provide
the UNIX user an environment based on the relational data model.
Usually, relational database theory deals only with relations in
1NF. In this talk, this assumption is relaxed by allowing
sets-of-values to exist anywhere an atomic value could before.
These relations will be unnormalized or in non-first-normal-form
(non-1NF). The need for non-1NF relations, a relational calculus
and algebra dealing with non-1NF relations, and some extended
algebra operators will be discussed.
The approach used in the design of ROSI was to model elements of
the operating system environment as relations and to model system
commands as statements in a relational language. In adapting the
relational data model to an operating system environment, we have
extended the model and tried to improve existing relational
languages. The extensions to the relational model are designed
to allow a more natural representation of elements of the en-
vironment. The language extensions exploit the universal relation
model and utilize the graphical capabilities of modern worksta-
tions.
The goal of the project is to produce a user and programmer in-
terface to the operating system that :
* is easier to use
* is easier to learn
* allows greater portability
as compared with existing operating system interfaces.
------------------------------
Date: 13 Nov 84 08:37:21 EST
From: Dennis Perzanowski <dennisp@NRL-AIC.ARPA>
Subject: Seminars - Partial Winter Schedule at NCARAI
U.S. Navy Center for Applied Research
in Artificial Intelligence
Naval Research Laboratory - Code 7510
Washington, DC 20375-5000
WINTER SEMINAR SERIES
Monday, 10:00 a.m.
3 December 1984
Dr. Poohsan Tamura
Westinghouse Research & Development Center
Pittsburgh, PA
"Optical High Speed 3-D Digital Data Acquisition"
Monday, 10:00 a.m.
17 December 1984
Dr. Terrence Sejnowski
Department of Biophysics
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD
"The BOLTZMANN Multiprocessor"
Monday, 10:00 a.m.
14 January 1985
Dr. Lance Miller
IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
Yorktown Heights, NY
"Bringing Intelligence into Word Processing:
The IBM EPISTLE System"
Monday, 10:00 a.m.
28 January 1985
Dr. Larry Reeker
Visiting Scientist at NCARAI
from Tulane University, New Orleans, LA
"Programming for Artificial Intelligence:
LISP, Ada, PROLOG, ... or Something Else?"
Meetings are held at 10:00 a.m. in the Conference Room of
the Navy Center for Applied Research in Artificial
Intelligence (Bldg. 256) located on Bolling Air Force Base,
off I-295, in the South East quadrant of Washington, DC. A
map can be mailed for your convenience.
Coffee will be available starting at 9:45 a.m. for a nominal
fee. Please do not arrive before this time.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN ATTENDING A SEMINAR, PLEASE CONTACT
US BEFORE NOON ON THE FRIDAY PRIOR TO THE SEMINAR SO THAT A
VISITOR'S PASS WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR YOU ON THE DAY OF THE
SEMINAR. NON-U.S. CITIZENS MUST CONTACT US AT LEAST TWO
WEEKS PRIOR TO A SCHEDULED SEMINAR. If you would like to
speak, be added to our mailing list, or would like more
information, contact Dennis Perzanowski. ARPANET:
DENNISP@NRL-AIC or (202) 767-2686.
------------------------------
Date: Fri 9 Nov 84 17:21:21-PST
From: Jon Barwise <BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
Subject: Course & Conference - Logic, language and computation meeting
[Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]
LOGIC, LANGUAGE AND COMPUTATION MEETINGS
The Association for Symbolic Logic (ASL) and the Center for the Study
of Language and Information (CSLI) are planning a summer school and a
meeting from July 8-20, 1985, at Stanford University. The first week
(July 8-13) will consist of the CSLI Summer School, during which
courses on the following topics will be offered:
Situation Semantics Prof. Jon Barwise
PROLOG Prof. Maarten van Emden
Denotational Semantics Prof. Gordon Plotkin
Types and ML Dr. David MacQueen
Complexity Theory Prof. Wolfgang Maass
Abstract Data Types Dr. Jose Meseguer
The Theory of Algorithms Prof. Yiannis Moschovakis
Generalized Quantifiers Dr. Lawrence Moss
LISP Dr. Brian Smith
Foundations of Intensional Logic Prof. Richmond Thomason
(Enrollment in some courses using computers is limited.)
The second week (July 15-20) will consist of an ASL Meeting with
invited addresses, symposia, and sessions for contributed papers. Of
the invited speakers, the following have already accepted:
Prof. Peter Azcel Prof. David Kaplan
Prof. Robert Constable Prof. Kenneth Kunen
Prof. Maarten van Emden Prof. Per Martin-Lof
Prof. Yuri Gurevich Prof. John Reynolds (tentative)
Prof. Anil Gupta (tentative) Dr. Larry Wos
Prof. Hans Kamp
Symposia:
Types in the Study of Computer and Natural Languages:
Prof. R. Chierchia Dr. David MacQueen
Prof. Solomon Feferman Prof. Barbara Partee
The Role of Logic in AI:
Dr. David Israel Dr. Stanley Rosenschein
Prof. John McCarthy
Possible Worlds:
Prof. John Perry Prof. Robert Stalnaker
For further information or registration forms, write to Ingrid
Deiwiks, CSLI, Ventura Hall, Stanford, CA 94305, or call (415)
497-3084. Room and board in a residence hall on campus are available,
and those interested should indicate their preference for single or
shared room, as well as the dates of their stay. Since space is
limited, arrangements should be made early. Some Graduate Student
Fellowships to cover cost of accomodation in the residence hall are
available. Abstracts of contributed papers should be no longer than
300 words and submitted no later than April 1, 1985. The program
committee consists of Jon Barwise, Solomon Feferman, David Israel and
William Marsh.
------------------------------
End of AIList Digest
********************