Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!alberta!calgary!arcsun!rob
From: rob@arcsun.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: dear abby....
Message-ID: <180@arcsun.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 2-Mar-87 15:37:59 EST
Article-I.D.: arcsun.180
Posted: Mon Mar  2 15:37:59 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Mar-87 20:38:09 EST
References: <178@arcsun.UUCP>
Organization: Alberta Research Council, Calgary, Ab.
Lines: 25
Keywords: justification in expert systems
Summary: Complete explanation is required

In article <178@arcsun.UUCP>, roy@arcsun.UUCP (Roy Masrani) writes:
> 
> Dear Abby.  My friends are shunning me because i think that to call
> a program an "expert system" it must be able to explain its decisions.
> "The system must be able to show its line of reasoning", I cry.  They
> say "Forget it, Roy... an expert system need only make decisions that
> equal human experts.  An explanation facility is optional".  Who's
> right?
> 
> Signed,
> 
> Un*justifiably* Compromised
> 
Dear Mr. Compromised:

   You should ask yourself whether you want a complete, intelligible
explanation facility, or just the basics (i.e. "The answer is X because
Rule Y says so"). If it is the latter, your friends are wrong and you
should tell them so. If the former, your friends are probably programmers
and lazy ones at that. You should find new friends.

Abby.
> Roy Masrani, Alberta Research Council
> Roy Masrani, Alberta Research Council
P.S. You don't need to specifically include a .signature