Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!harpo!utah-cs!shebs
From: shebs@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley Shebs)
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Re: RE: Expert Systems
Message-ID: <2279@utah-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 2-Dec-83 18:27:43 EST
Article-I.D.: utah-cs.2279
Posted: Fri Dec  2 18:27:43 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Dec-83 05:17:15 EST
References: ncsu.2420
Lines: 14

A large data-processing application is not an expert system because
it cannot explain its action, nor is the knowledge represented in an
adequate fashion.  A "true" expert system would *not* consist of
algorithms as such.  It would consist of facts and heuristics organized
in a fashion to permit some (relatively uninteresting) algorithmic
interpreter to generate interesting and useful behavior. Production
systems are a good example.  The interpreter is fixed - it just selects
rules and fires them.  The expert system itself is a collection of rules,
each of which represents a small piece of knowledge about the domain.
This is of course an idealization - many "expert systems" have a large
procedural component.  Sometimes the existence of that component can 
even be justified...

						stan shebs
						utah-cs!shebs