rshu@macarthur.ADS.COM (Richard Shu) (05/18/89)
Yeah, I know, it's pushing towards more specialization of groups but I don't think it's more specialized than some of the other groups that already exist. I just don't have time to read everything that gets posted to comp.ai and my particular focus of interest is in planning techniques. It doesn't even have to be AI. Perhaps interested parties can comment on whether it should be comp.ai.planning or just comp.planning. Let's run the discussion period and voting until June 15th. I'll put out a call for votes then. If there is software out there that automatically handles the voting process, I'd like to hear about it. Rich (responsible-p ADS message) NIL (si:halt)
rshelby@ms.uky.edu (Richard Shelby) (05/19/89)
In article <7929@zodiac.UUCP>, rshu@macarthur.ADS.COM (Richard Shu) writes: > > Perhaps interested parties can comment on > whether it should be comp.ai.planning or just comp.planning. > > Let's run the discussion period and voting until June 15th. I would like a discussion group devoted to planning and I would favor comp.planning though comp.ai.planning would be acceptable. With either name the group is a good idea; there's a lot of work being done in the area. -- Richard Shelby rshelby@ms.uky.edu Department of Health Services rshelby@ukma.BITNET University of Kentucky {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!rshelby
converse@tartarus.uchicago.edu (Tim Converse) (05/19/89)
Good idea. I sometimes scan the headers of comp.ai,
looking for articles not about the Chinese room :-), but I would
probably actually read a planning newsgroup. I probably prefer
comp.ai.planning, since I suspect the time is ripe for more
such proliferation of AI subgroups, but comp.planning would
also be fine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Tim Converse-- | "And of course the tautology is,
converse@tartarus.uchicago.edu | after all, the foundation of all
Work: 702-0024 Home: 643-3582 | tautological thought."winfave@dutrun.UUCP (Alexander Verbraeck) (05/22/89)
I am in favor: let's call it comp.planning. There is more to discuss on planning than just the AI aspects. Lots of people are working on this subject. It could become a very interesting group! --------------------------------------------------------------------- Alexander Verbraeck e-mail: Delft University of Technology winfave@hdetud1.bitnet Department of Information Systems winfave@dutrun.uucp PO Box 356, 2600 AJ The Netherlands ---------------------------------------------------------------------
ldi@rayssd.ray.com (Louis P. DiPalma) (05/23/89)
I vote for a new group regarding AI Planning.
pim@unl.fctunl.rccn.pt (Pimentao) (05/24/89)
First of all I would like to register my agreement to the creation of the pruposed group "comp.ai.planning". There are lots of important matters related to this topic that deserve the apropriate discussion. I couldn't help disagreeing from Alexander Verbraekc's article, <728@dutrun.UUCP> where he proposes changing the name of the group to 'comp.planning' because, traditionally, that kind of planning I assume we're talking about is, "automatic plan generation" which as been, for a long time, a specific branch of Artificial Intelligence, and I, for once, am in favour of giving credits where credits are due. Hopping that this does not generate a big discussion, I would like to state that the most important topic here is my positive vote to the creation of such a group; if there is an agreement in creating the group as 'comp.planning' I also give my agreement... Specifically to Alexander Verbraek, I would personally apreciate some comments on the topic, which I assume, could be sent to me by e-mail. -- ------ Joao Paulo B. Pimentao | BITNET/Internet: pim@host.fctunl.rccn.pt Departamento de Informatica | PSI/VMS: PSI%(+2680)05010310::HOST::pim Fac. de Ciencias e Tecnologia | UUCP: pim@unl.uucp Universidade Nova de Lisboa | ARPA: pim%hara.fctunl.rccn.pt@mitvma.mit.edu 2825 Monte de Caparica | Fax: (+351) (1) 295-4461 PORTUGAL | Phone: (+351) (1) 295-4464 x.0460
roth@sce.carleton.ca (Carl Roth) (05/24/89)
In order to escape some of the psychological discussions that seem to go in circles in the comp.ai group (ie. surrealism of dreams, free will, add nausium) it would be nice to be able to read a group that actually discussed an application/technique. A number of my colleagues have stopped reading comp.ai because of this problem. I realize that some of the psychological discussions are important parts of ai but I feel that they belong in their own group so that that those concerned with other aspects of ai can ignore them. I am currently doing postgraduate work in the area of AI and Planning and would welcome such a new group. I have compiled an extensive bibliography that I would be willing to post if requested. Carl Roth Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario, Canada roth@sce.carleton.ca roth@sce.uucp
lisplog@uklirb.UUCP (Bernd Bachmann AG Richter) (05/29/89)
I support the suggestion to install a new group on this subfield of AI (as we did with comp.ai.shells: CAUTION: this is an ad -:). The overall structure of complete AI seems not to be similarly represented in the USENET newsgroups' structure. Preferably the name should be comp.ai.planning instead of comp.planning; it better fits in the newsgroup hierarchy: comp.ai (for general topics, mostly philosophical), comp.ai.digest (moderated), comp.ai.shells (moderated, expert system shells), comp.ai.vision (vision), comp.ai.neural-nets, etc. It is not clarified now whether this newsgroup will be a moderated one ?! Good luck for fulfilling the requests for installation. - Bernd Bachmann