Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!sri-ai.arpa!AIList-REQUEST From: AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI.ARPA (AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws) Newsgroups: net.ai Subject: AIList Digest V3 #125 Message-ID: <8509201814.AA19812@UCB-VAX.ARPA> Date: Fri, 20-Sep-85 13:16:00 EDT Article-I.D.: UCB-VAX.8509201814.AA19812 Posted: Fri Sep 20 13:16:00 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 22-Sep-85 05:48:26 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA Reply-To: AIList@SRI-AI Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 251 AIList Digest Friday, 20 Sep 1985 Volume 3 : Issue 125 Today's Topics: Queries - FRL Sources & Parallel Rule Execution & Information Retrieval & Lisp/Prolog for IBM4361, AI Tools - Xerox 1185 & Prolog vs. Lisp, Expert Systems - Intellectual Honesty and the SDI ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 19 Sep 85 10:01:08 cdt From: neves@wisc-ai.arpa (David Neves) Subject: FRL sources I remember a message a year ago about someone having the sources to FRL. Unfortunately I don't remember who that person was. Could anyone who has the sources send me mail? -Thanks, David Neves Usenet: {allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo,uwm-evax}!uwvax!neves Arpanet: neves@uwvax ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Sep 85 09:04:36 pdt From: Thomas L. Zimmerman Subject: Parallel Rule Execution The Naval Ocean Systems Center (NOSC) and Goodyear Aerospace are working on a series of experiments to demonstrate the feasibiliy of running expert systems on the Goodyear ASPRO parallel processor. A unique representation for rules and data has been developed which on paper allows the ASPRO to test 2,000,000 rules per second for satisfaction. This representation scheme does put some limitations on the system involved - it appears to require a very pure production system with no embedded control or functions in the rules. So far a small (500 rule) system was written with this application in mind and run on both a Symbolics and the ASPRO sucessfully. We would now like to convert an existing sequential expert system for parallel execution in order to determine the degree of speedup actually available and to discover the limitations of converting a system not originally designed for this application. Unfortunatly I am having trouble finding a system to convert for this demonstration - which is why I am appealing to all of you. We need a reasonably sized (200-700 rule) system, preferably military in character, that meets the above limitations that we can attempt to run on our parallel inference engine. This would be a no-cost way for someone to have their system speeded up by an estimated three orders of magnitude. Any takers? If you're interested please contact me: Lee Zimmerman Naval Ocean Systems Center Code 421 San Diego CA 92152 (619) 225-6571 or zimmer@nosc ------------------------------ Date: 18 Sep 85 15:30:36 EDT From: MARS@RED.RUTGERS.EDU Subject: NLP for knowledge acquisition Hi: I am interested in info about projects which use Natural Language Processing Techniques to analyse scientific articles or abstracts with the aim of deriving knowledge bases from them. I am aware of a few projects in that field (UCLA, IBM Heidelberg, Leiden University, Chemical Abstracts), but I would appreciate any further pointers. Please reply directly to me, and I will summarize to the net. Thanks. Nicolaas J.I. Mars [I have forwarded this message and the next to the information retrieval list, IRList%VPI.CSNet@CSNet-Relay.ARPA. -- KIL] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Sep 85 09:08 EST From: Ramesh Astik Subject: query - Information Retrieval I was looking for some references in synthetic organic chemistry on a Chemical Abstract Database system.The first hit was 10,000 followed by narrowing down to 400 ! The same search by an expert bibliographer or search assistant gave me exactly 23 article list. This is the difference in eye-balling and machine-search. We had a lot of debate on the mental process of the human expert doing the job and whether that can be mimicked on a computer or not. Does any one know of any expert-system which can save us so much paper work in searching and retrieving the information? Our University has access to approximately 300 databases and after the Automated search list is obtained,most of us do equally long eye-balling!! Kindly send any information to RAMPAN@NORTHEASTERN. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Sep 85 14:23:22 EDT From: "Martin R. Lyons" <991@NJIT-EIES.MAILNET> Subject: Info on Lisp/Prolog for IBM4361 Greetings all. Does anyone have any leads where I might obtain a LISP or Prolog implementation that would run on an IBM 4361? I am looking for public domain or reasonably priced packages; and wouldn't you know it, time is of the essence. If anyone has any leads please contact me at the address below. I will summarize and post here if there is sufficient interest. As always, thanks in advance! MAILNET: Marty@NJIT-EIES.Mailnet ARPA: Marty%NJIT-EIES.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA or @MIT-MULTICS.ARPA:Marty@NJIT-EIES.Mailnet USPS: Marty Lyons, CCCC/EIES @ New Jersey Institute of Technology, 323 High St., Newark, NJ 07102 USA (201) 596-2932 "You're in the fast lane....so go fast." ------------------------------ Date: 16 Sep 85 15:28 PDT From: Fischer.pa@Xerox.ARPA Subject: Correction: Xerox 1185 uses 80186 not 8086 Being as close as I am to the subject I'm embarassed to say (but overjoyed to know) that I was wrong and that the 1185 and 1186 workstations use the Intel 80186 processor chip both in the IO processor and on the IBM PC emulator boards. Their (micro programmable) main processor is built with bitslice devices. But note that I never claimed to be a faultless spokes-thing for Xerox or Xerox AI Systems, just another random attendee of IJCAI. Sorry folks, (ron) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1985 06:28 EDT From: Hewitt@MIT-MC.ARPA Subject: Prolog and Lisp I would like to respond to the message in AILIST from Fanya Montalvo who wrote: From: Hewitt However, it is not possible to make a commercially viable Common Lisp implementation on Prolog. This means that any good software written for a stand alone Prolog system will soon appear on the Lisp Systems but NOT vice versa. Therefore the stand alone Prolog systems will always have impoverished software libraries by comparison with the Common Lisp systems and will not be commercially viable in the long run. From: Montalvo This type of argument strikes one as historical accident not as anything fundamental. And by that accident I mean vagaries of the market place. Could you say more about how it's fundamental, or do you agree that it's historical accident? This is a very good question! However, in this case I believe that the commercial marketplace is reflecting some very real deficiencies in Prolog and its underlying conceptual basis of LOGIC as a PROGRAMMING language. As far as I can tell no one in the Prolog community believes that they will EVER be able to construct a commercially viable Common Lisp on Prolog. That indicates that there are some critical limitations of Prolog that are not just historical accidents. I believe that the deficiencies of Prolog cannot be repaired within the framework of LOGIC as a PROGRAMMING language. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Sep 85 18:05 EDT From: Hewitt@MIT-MC.ARPA Subject: Lisp vs. Prolog vs. ? I agree with Wayne McGuire who wrote as follows to this list: ... one might speculate that perhaps the bulk of AI code will be written neither in Lisp nor Prolog (not even an enhanced Prolog which can elegantly manipulate and coordinate in the same conceptual space multiple worlds, logics, and beliefs), but a higher-level language, perhaps using Lisp and/or Prolog as a base. However, I would like to point out that Prolog is not a suitable base to implement the kind of higher-level languages that Wayne envisions since it does not provide the appropriate primitives. Implementing higher-level Artificial Intelligence languages requires efficient data structure and control primitives that are not part of Prolog. I agree that Common Lisp is too low level to use very much to directly implement applications. However, Lisp has historically been an excellent implementation language for implementing higher-level Artificial Intelligence languages. Indeed some of the best Prolog systems and other logic systems such as FOL (Wheyhrauch et. al.), MRS (Genesereth et. al), the Pure Lisp Theorem Prover (Boyer and Moore), and LogLisp (Robinson et. al.) are implemented on Lisp. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Sep 85 15:48 EDT From: WAnderson.wbst@Xerox.ARPA Subject: Intellectual honesty and the SDI At the recent IJCAI at UCLA I picked up a couple of papers at the GE exhibit booth. One of these, entitled "A Tutorial on Expert Systems for Battlefield Applications," (delivered at a meeting of the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association last May) states that "AI systems that incorporate human expertise may be the only way" to fill the gap between availability of people and complexity of military hardware. In defense of this strategy the author states: - In contrast with humans, AI systems are good at handling the myriad details of complex situations, such as often occur in military settings. - In contrast with other computational approaches that are more formal and algorithmic, AI systems are more robust: they are designed to deal with problems exhibiting uncertainty, ambiguity, and inaccuracy. I find it appalling (and frightening) that statements like this can be presented in a technical paper to military personnel. The author (according to the references) has contributed widely to the AI field at many conferences. It's simply ludicrous to state that current AI systems are better in battlefield situations than humans. What was the last AI system that could drive a tank, carry on a conversation, and fix a broken radio whilst under enemy fire? The second comment is equally misleading. To contrast "formal and algorithmic" with "robust" seems to imply that algorithms and formal procedures are inherently not robust. On what is this claim based? (There is no reference attached to either statement.) It sounds like a recipe for unreliable software to me. How can someone write this stuff? I know, to make money. But if this is the kind of information that is presented to the military, and upon which they make decisions, then how can we expect any kind of fair assessment of the possible projects in the Strategic Computing (and Defense) Initiatives? How can this kind of misinformation be rebutted? Bill Anderson P.S. The full reference is available on request. ------------------------------ End of AIList Digest ******************** Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com