greiner@ai.toronto.edu (Russ Greiner) (03/19/88)
Any suggestions? Russ ... Return-Path: <@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU:fair@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU> Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Tue 1 Mar 88 16:16:23-PST Received: from ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU by SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU with TCP; Tue, 1 Mar 88 16:05:40 PST Received: by ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (5.58/1.26) id AA18142; Tue, 1 Mar 88 14:09:22 PST Date: Tue, 1 Mar 88 14:09:22 PST Message-Id: <8803012209.AA18142@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU> From: Tom Galloway <tyg@eddie.mit.edu> Sender: fair@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU Reply-To: tyg@eddie.mit.edu Subject: Survey: the best AI papers of 1987 To: AI-Researchers-On-The-Net; (a fictitious address) Greetings. I'm attempting to write a survey article for the AI Magazine on the "best" AI papers/books of 1987, and I'd like to ask you to participate. It occured to me last year that it's getting more and more difficult to keep up with what's going on in all of the subfields of AI. In fact, it's getting more difficult just trying to figure out what's important in each subfield these days. Other researchers I've talked to admitted they're having the same problem. So I came up with the idea of polling as many AI researchers as possible as to what they think the 5 most important items of AI literature were that were published in 1987. This can include conference papers, journal articles, books, whatever. By "important", I mean either what appear to be notable new ideas in the field, good writeups of important completed projects, or even useful surveys of the field. One way of thinking of this is; what items from last year would I tell a 2nd/3rd year grad student who wants to work with me to go read? Some other ground rules; if possible, I'd prefer that you not list items from your own research group, and items from your site only if you consider them truly crucial. If you can't come up with five items, any number up to five is fine. Please feel free to post this to any local bboards or send it to other researchers. However, at least for the moment, I'd like to request that this not be posted to any of the AI related Arpanet digests or the AI related Usenet groups. When sending back the items, please feel free to comment on your choices, and please include your name, position, and affiliation. The latter is in case you received this via someone other than myself, in which case I may not know who you are. Finally, please indicate if you'd like your name listed in the article in a form similar to that used for AAAI/IJCAI referees; i.e. The following suggested papers; Joe Foo, Jane Bar, etc. I've received feedback for this both ways; that listing names is a good idea, and that it's not such a good one. I've asked a friend of mine on Arpanet to send this letter for me; if your mailer attempts send a reply to him (fair@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu), rather than to me, please change it to reply to any of the addresses I give below. I'd like to hear back from you by April 10th if possible. And, of course, if this effort is successful, I hope to do a similar article each year. Thanks, Tom Galloway (tyg) galloway@clsefp51.bitnet OR galloway%clsepf51.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU OR tyg@eddie.mit.edu OR tyg@mit-eddie.uucp -- | Russ Greiner U of T, Toronto M5S 1A4 CDN | | ..!utcsri!utai!greiner greiner@ai.toronto.edu | | greiner%ai.toronto@csnet-relay (416) 978-6277 |