Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
AIList Digest Volume 6 Issue 065
AIList Digest Wednesday, 13 Apr 1988 Volume 6 : Issue 65
Today's Topics:
Applications - Circuit-Design Translators in Prolog/Lisp &
Automatic Knowledge Extraction & Racter,
Logic - Modal Logic References,
AI Tools - Student Versions of OPS5 & TI microExplorer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 88 07:28:53 CST
From: lusk%antares@anl-mcs.arpa
Subject: translators in Prolog/Lisp
You might try Peter Rentjes (sp?) somewhere in North Carolina. (Sorry I can't
be more specific) He has a large circuit design language translator written
in Prolog, parts of which were released into the public domain at the recent
Prolog benchmarking workshop in Los Angeles. For Peter's address you might
try Rick Stevens (stevens@anl-mcs.arpa).
------------------------------
Date: 3 Apr 88 00:31:00 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!fiorentino1@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Re: automatic knowledge extraction
In response to Thomas Muhr: I refer you to Expert Systems for Experts
by Kamran Parsaye and Mark Chignell; John Wiley 1988 which covers the area
discussed quite well. I am specifically interested in repertory grids and have
toyed with the idea of purchasing Finn Tschudi Flexigrid to use in learning
to apply grids in the psychotherapeutic process. I have a degree in Philosophy
and are starting a dissertation in Counseling Psychology for a PhD. I have been
an investigator for twenty years doing thousands of interviews. I realized
recently how everything I have done may have prepared me to try being
a knowledge engineer. I would be intersted in knowing what literature
you recommend covering the use of grids and what avaible software is best?
I find much validity in what you say and would appreciate hearing your
advice,
------------------------------
Date: 5 Apr 88 04:52:59 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!tony_mak_makonnen@uunet.uu.net
Subject: automated knowledge
I contacted Kamran Parsaye co-author of "Expert Systems For Experts"
and am considering buying a software package put out by his company
called Auto-Intelligence which incorporates repertory grids in which
I have special interest. I am torn between getting his package ( cost
$ 490.00) and getting Finn Tschudi's Flexigrid which I have seen demonstrated
(cost $ 400.00). Anyone out there with some acquaintance with either or
both of these programs? I can use some advice before I spend the
money.
------------------------------
Date: 5 Apr 88 15:20 PDT
From: JJD.MDC; Jacob J. L. Dickinson / McDonnell Douglas
<JJD.MDC@OFFICE-1.ARPA>
Subject: Re: AIList V6 #62 - RACTER, Expert Systems, Circuit Design
Racter (AIList V6 #62) is available for the Macintosh (I think about $30
retail), and possibly for the IBM PC.
--------------------------------
Date: 30 Mar 88 01:22:23 GMT
From: killer!usl!cal@ames.arpa (Craig Anthony Leger)
Subject: Re: Modal Logic and AI -- References Needed
In article <1988Feb27.021115.11206@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu>
kurfurst@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Thomas Kurfurst) writes:
>I am seeking references to seminal works relating modal logic to artifical
>intelligence research, especially more theoretical (philosophical)
>papers rather than applications per se.
This is a list that I sent to a friend a couple of months ago.
These works do not represent current research in modal logic,
but are very useful as starting points and as standard reference works.
The comments are highly subjective, but provide some indication
as to whether the work has a philosophical or mathematical perspective.
%H BC 51 B64
%A Raymond Bradley
%A Norman Swartz
%T Possible Worlds: An Introduction to Logic and Its Philosophy
%I Hackett
%C Indianapolis, Indiana
%D 1979
%X
This is a very enjoyable work that looks at modal logic
from the perspective of the philosopher. Numerous sections
dealing with the relation between symbolic logic and
epistemology and the philosophy of science. Sections 4.5
and 4.6 (pp. 205-245), together with a table (pp. 327-28),
are the most valuable parts of the book.
%H BC 135 L43
%A Clarence Irving Lewis
%A Cooper Harold Langford
%T Symbolic Logic
%I The Century Company
%C New York
%D 1932
%S The Century Philosophy Series
%E Sterling P. Lamprecht
%X
The classic work on modal logic. Good essays on the notions
of logical implication and deduction.
%H BC 135 W7
%A Georg Henrik von Wright
%T An Essay in Modal Logic
%I North-Holland
%C Amsterdam
%D 1951
%S Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics
%E L. E. J. Brouwer, E. W. Beth, A. Heyting
%X
This is a very short work (90 pp.), yet perhaps the most illuminating.
Modal logic is treated almost entirely on the symbolic level;
very little discussion of conflicting interpretations.
It is my major source for those (relatively) undisputed results
in modal logic.
Bradley & Swartz -- Lewis -- von Wright
<== most philosophical most mathematical ==>
Good reading to you,
Craig Anthony Leger
cal@usl.usl.edu
------------------------------
Date: 10 Apr 88 15:17:19 GMT
From: dailey@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (John H. Dailey)
Subject: Re: Modal Logic and AI -- References Needed
Though it is somewhat mathematically sophisticated, I think that the best
recent book on modal logic is: Modal Logic and Classical Logic, by Johan van
Benthem, Bibliopolis, 1983. A mathematically easier text is Hughes and
Cresswell's Companion to Modal Logic -- I don't have it here for the publishing
data, but it came out only a couple of years ago. Another, more specialized book
is: The Unprovability of Consistency, by George Boolos, Cambridge U. Press.
For a more philosophical look at possible worlds you should read: Inquiry, by
Robert Stalnaker, MIT Press, 1984. Though none of these books deal with AI, they
are some of the best books recently done on modal logic. For work closer to AI
(actually, natural language processing) you might want to look at Montague
Semantics, which incorporates a possible worlds approach (see also Gallin's
Intensional Mathematics--(North Holland?) which gives some completeness results
for Montague systems). For criticisms of this approach see, e.g. the first
chapter of Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds,
by Gennaro Chierchia, Ph.D. dissertation, UMass, Amherst.
The list of articles on modal logic is endless, especially for natural
language semantics, but the above books should give you a good feel for the
subject.
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| John H. Dailey |
| Center for Applied Math. |
| Cornell U. |
| Ithaca, N.Y. 14853 |
| dailey@CRNLCAM (Bitnet) |
| dailey@amvax.tn.cornell.edu (ARPANET) |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
------------------------------
Date: 11 Apr 88 04:25:39 GMT
From: dailey@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (John H. Dailey)
Subject: Re: Modal Logic and AI -- References Needed
Ooops. In a previous article I credited Steward Shapiro's Intentional Math. to
D. Gallin. I meant to recommend D. Gallin, Intensional and Higher Order Logic,
North Holland, 1975. Perhaps a good starting reference for various aspects of
modal logic is the Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. II, ed. D. Gabbay
and F. Guenthner, D. Reidel, 1984.
-John H. Dailey
--------------------------------
Date: 5 Apr 88 19:04:25 GMT
From: mtunx!lzaz!nitro!prophet@rutgers.edu (Mike Brooks)
Subject: Re: Student versions of OPS5
In article <28259@aero.ARPA> srt@aero.UUCP (Scott R. Turner) writes:
>In article <1580@netmbx.UUCP> morus@netmbx.UUCP (Thomas Muhr) writes:
>>In article <27336@aero.ARPA> srt@aero.UUCP (Scott R. Turner) writes:
>>>(*) My experience is that most OPS5 programmers (not that there are many)
>> Is this right ? ---^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>ignore or actively counter the "pick the most specific/least recently used"
>>>rules anyway.
>
>My guess is that there are very few active OPS5 programmers out there.
>For the most part I would say it is a dead language. It is years out
>of date (in terms of representation power, etc.), has an awkward
>syntax, and promotes a rather strained coding style. The fact that
>there are only two or three people contributing to this topic should
>give you some idea of how popular it is in regards to the net.
I can't give an exact number for OPS5 programmers (active) who are out here
but I personally have found OPS5 to be a stable and instructive
rule-based programming environment (though not the only one!).
I am working on a prototype system to handle resource and
activity planning within a test lab.
Although at first I was a little annoyed by the lacks that I initially
perceived, I discovered that OPS5, as an environment to learn rule-based
programming, is ideal because it doesn't have nifty full screen user
interfaces or tons of libraries; it focuses your attention on the real
beef: the innards of the of the system or project at hand.
I find that at times, having so much to choose from confuses the issue
of what needs to be done.
When needs arose for functionality not terribly well handled in OPS5,
it's simply another call to an external procedure which tests for some
measure of success.
I want to stress that I am not advocating OPS5 as a do-all, end-all
tool, just that it is still useful, and if there are any OPS5 or OPS83
programmers out there I would love email from you detailing your
experiences with these *dinosaurs*.
Michael P. Brooks
E-mail: {mtuxo,ihnp4}!attunix!nitro!prophet
--------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 88 17:21:44 CDT
From: Paul Fuqua <pf@ti-csl.csc.ti.com>
Subject: Re: TI microExplorer (Mac II coprocessor) ... [AIList V6 #52]
[I forwarded the message from Bill Luciw (V6 #52) to an internal mailing list
that deals with the microExplorer, and received a reply from the project
manager, Mike Field. With his permission, and only formatting changes, here
are his comments. I hope they prove useful. - pf]
Date: Thursday, March 17, 1988 8:30am (CST)
From: rochester!kodak!luciw at louie.udel.edu (bill luciw)
Subject: TI microExplorer (Mac II coprocessor) ... [AIList V6 #52]
2) Is TI's implementation of RPC available to other applications (such as those
developed under MPW)?
RPC availability to other applications - we plan to address this in future
releases.
3) How well integrated is the microExplorer into the rest of the Mac
environment - (cut, copy, paste, print on an AppleTalk printer) ?
Integration with Mac environment - the desk top, window system, and file
system integration is excellent; however, coupling the Lisp kill ring with
cut/copy/paste, and a direct interface to Apple printers are features to be
addressed in future releases.
4) Can you install the "load bands" on third party disks (SuperMac 150) or do
they need to remain on the Apple hard disk (the load bands are supposed to
be normal, finder accessible files)?
Installing "load bands" on 3rd party disks - no problem, as long as they
work with the Mac II.
5) How much of a hassle is it to port applications over to the little beastie
from a normal Explorer (what about ART, KEE, SIMKIT, etc.)?
Porting applications - most ports we've looked at so far are fairly
trivial, or will be by first release. There are special requirements
related to screen updates and lack of mouse warping that must be covered,
however.
6) Do any benchmarks (ala Gabriel) exist for this machine?
Benchmarks - yes, we run Explorer benchmarks on microExplorer. It runs
about 50% of an Explorer II.
7) How about ToolBox access from the Lisp Environment? (or am I dreaming?)
Toolbox access from Lisp - future release.
Our group is responsible for testing this type of technology and developing a
"delivery vehicle strategy." Ideally, said delivery vehicle should be under
$10K, but it looks like we'll be around $20K before we're through. This puts
the microExplorer in the same price range as a "reasonably" equiped Sun
3/60FC.
Pricing vs Sun 3/60FC - this is so far superior in performance and
environment to the Sun, it should not be an issue.
Paul Fuqua
Texas Instruments Computer Science Center, Dallas, Texas
CSNet: pf@csc.ti.com (ARPA too, eventually)
UUCP: {smu, texsun, im4u, rice}!ti-csl!pf
--------------------------------
End of AIList Digest
********************
