qy

On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Justin Walsh wrote:

> > I'd be interested in more intelligent objects, but it's still two year
> > before I do AI.
> 
> Doing  AI is fine, it can't hurt. I was interested in it in the late 80s but
> chose Expert Systems instead. Experts Systems is a kind trade off, owing to
> the fact that nobody could agree on just what AI was. (sounds a bit like
> what I'm being accused of).
> Expert System do work very well.
> The prefered language for the Expert System builder is Prolog (although any
> language will do if you enjoy pain)
> Basically all you describe is the Knowledge Base.
> The Inference Engine will allow various Tree Navigation Methods ie
> Depth First, Breadth First, Hill Climbing and Least Cost. There are actually
> no instructions if you use the "grunt" Depth First approach.
> If you decide to take control of the Navigation yourself then you have two
> instructions you can use The "cut" and the "fail". It was in those days
> notoriously lacking in file handling capabilities and OO was unheard of.
> That is all changing now.
> Ok now to the bad news. At the Enterprise level (zero) there were no proper
> design methodologies for Prolog. The best that they could offer me was
> Binary Relation and Semantic Modelling. Both are dismal failures. Because of
> that Prolog was dumped from some of the larges projects in Australia:
> Telecom and the AMP.
> So Smalltalk is not alone in that regard.
> There is only one Methodology that is suitable for designing Hierarchical
> Knowledge Bases that I know of and that is   http://ripose.com/
> It treats the Expert System as a Business Expert (iterative level 1,2,3).
> Whilst it assumes a higher Corporate Expert position (level 0).
> Smalltalk Play (experiment) at (level 4) is missing both these levels.
> If Smalltalk is happy at this level then it does not really need any of the
> levels above it.
> It is already, in respect of its Purpose, successfull.
> Some disatisfied person ported Mike Tengs Prolog to Digitalk/V (PCXT) and
> the V286.
> It's great!
> K Bolot http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/1000
> Prolog enthusiast  http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/574
> Best I stop here
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gary McGovern" <garywork at lineone.net>
> To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 2:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Three Threads Of Squeak
> 
> 
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Doug Way" <dway at riskmetrics.com>
> > To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 2:25 AM
> > Subject: Re: Three Threads Of Squeak
> >
> >
> > > Anyway, let's consider the three levels.  In what way does Squeak not
> > support the Conceptual and Logistical levels?  Are you implying that
> another
> > language/environment/tool does support all three levels?
> > >
> > > Squeak/Smalltalk is a high-level language relative to most commonly used
> > programming languages (e.g. C++, Java, Basic, Perl, etc.).  And it is
> > reflective and includes an IDE, written in itself, which lets you analyze
> > code at a higher level than a text editor, and also lets you build tools
> to
> > potentially analyze at a higher level still.  Thus it should be able to
> > support the sort of higher-level thinking you're talking about
> (conceptual,
> > logistical) better than most others.
> > >
> > > Granted, it might be nice to have more tool support built-in for this
> sort
> > of higher-level thinking.  But existing Squeak tools like ThingLab and
> Ned's
> > ConnectorMorphs sort of point in this direction.  (I'm not sure exactly
> how
> > "high-level" we're talking.)
> >
> > Hello Doug,
> > I'd like to mention a couple of points here. Justin mentioned Prolog to me
> > offline and following Alan's citation url a few messages back, Man -
> > Computer symbiosis is mentioned, and a key inference of that idea would be
> > greater intelligence on the part of the computer.
> >
> > I'd be interested in more intelligent objects, but it's still two year
> > before I do AI.
> >
> > Perhaps that's what Justin is getting at.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Gary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
>