ck@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Cris Koutsougeras) (07/16/90)
REQUEST FOR HELP WITH NEURAL NETS TERMINOLOGY STANDARDS The neural nets area is an interdisciplinary one. As such it has been attracting researchers from various areas such as neurobiology, computer science, controls, thermodynamics etc. Until the neural nets theme brought researchers from such areas together, there was little interest about the proceeds of research in a certain area from researchers in another area. So various terms have been established for essentially the same concepts or abstract entities. Unfortunately the variety of terms has been passed onto the neural nets terminology as this is used today. We have therefore found ourselves dealing with a great diversity in the terminology and notation which can create misunderstanding and confusion for readers and difficulties for writers. This problem is especially severe for persons new to the field. You will find for example the terms node, neuron, neurode, unit, processing element, cell to refer to the same entity. Another example : weight, synapse, connection strength, propagation coefficient etc. To address this terminology/notation problem, the IEEE Neural Networks Council has established an Ad Hoc Standards Committee. It is felt that neural nets technology is still in such an actively evolving state that an attempt to standardize terminology and notation must take precedence. We would like to request interested researchers in the area to help with the development of a list of terms for which it is felt that there exists a need for a precise definition. All of you who have faced a problem with the clarity of certain terms or concepts, are invited to communicate with us a list of such terms. We also welcome your suggestion concerning possible definitions which you feel that accurately and clearly describe the entity referred to by each term or collection of terms. A relevant article by R. Eberhart is published in the IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks (Vol 1, No 2, June 90) which you may wish to consult. Submitt your contributions to Dr. E. Tzanakou, Bioengineering Dpt., Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ. or e-mail : etzanako@elbereth.rutgers.edu Cris Koutsougeras Tulane University
bill@boulder.Colorado.EDU (07/17/90)
In article <3862@rex.cs.tulane.edu> ck@rex.cs.tulane.edu writes: > [ . . . ] >To address this terminology/notation problem, the IEEE Neural Networks >Council has established an Ad Hoc Standards Committee. It is felt >that neural nets technology is still in such an actively evolving >state that an attempt to standardize terminology and notation must >take precedence. We would like to request [ . . . ] Hey, I think you posted this to the wrong group. Isn't it more appropriate for rec.humor.funny? -- Bill . . .
rdm1@midway.uchicago.edu (russell dean mast) (07/17/90)
In article <23561@boulder.Colorado.EDU> bill@synapse.Colorado.EDU (Bill Skaggs) writes: >In article <3862@rex.cs.tulane.edu> ck@rex.cs.tulane.edu writes: >> [ . . . ] >>To address this terminology/notation problem, the IEEE Neural Networks >>Council has established an Ad Hoc Standards Committee. It is felt >>that neural nets technology is still in such an actively evolving >>state that an attempt to standardize terminology and notation must >>take precedence. We would like to request [ . . . ] > > Hey, I think you posted this to the wrong group. Isn't it more >appropriate for rec.humor.funny? > > -- Bill Why not rec.humor.d? --Rus.