Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!purdue!decwrl!labrea!glacier!jbn
From: jbn@glacier.STANFORD.EDU (John B. Nagle)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Grand Challenges:  Expert System Shells replace COBOL
Message-ID: <17754@glacier.STANFORD.EDU>
Date: 2 Oct 88 16:30:57 GMT
References: <123@feedme.UUCP> <17736@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> <1717@randvax.UUCP> <1680@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Reply-To: jbn@glacier.UUCP (John B. Nagle)
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 25


      This is true.  What expert systems have, in practice, turned out to
be is simply another form of special-purpose programming system for the
development of a specific class of applications.  Spreadsheets were the
first such form to achieve truly widespread use.  One could argue about old
report-writer systems such as RPG, but such systems were and are generally used
by data processing staff.  Spreadsheets are more often set up by people
who themselves want to analyze the numbers.  Programmable database programs
for end users, such as Dbase and its successors, followed.  Now we have
Apple's Hypercard, again, a simplified programming system for end users.

      Expert systems shells are tools of the same class.  They provide
a system in which programs for a limited class of problems can be neatly
expressed.  As such, they are useful, but not a profound breakthrough.

      About five years ago, I made the statement that when all is said and done,
expert systems will be more important than syntax-directed parsing but
less important than relational databases.  In retrospect, this seems a
valid assessment.

      If this whole technology had simply been called "rule-based programming",
the same results probably would have been obtained, with much less controversy.


					John Nagle