[alicebot-archcomm] [motion] <shuffle>

[Noel Bush]

I'm not interested in taking a vacation.  I think there's quite a lot of
work that can be done here; I don't think that the disagreements to
which Rich alluded need to interfere with this committee's work, and I
don't think they need to be aired here.

To get back to the topic, Andrew Teal asked:
> how do we cope with all those other variants of random which were
> desired by a range of people? A range of new tags?

> Hmm ... not so good. So what about using attributes to random? More
> extensible as the variants are developed?

I know that that's what Jon proposed, too.  My problem was that when I
reviewed the list of other variants of random, I didn't see any that
seemed essential, from my point of view.  That doesn't mean they aren't,
just that I didn't understand.

But considering the question of adding attributes to an existing element
vs. adding a new element, I have to wonder: what's the difference?  One
advantage to the idea of adding attributes is that we could specify a
general rule that known tags with attributes unknown to a given AIML
interpreter should be interpreted in a default way -- i.e., an AIML
interpreter might encounter <random type="shuffle"> but not know about
the "shuffle" type, so just use the default (or an undefined) kind of
random.  I can see the benefit in that -- actually, though, it makes me
want to step back and propose this more general rule first.

On the other hand, adding a new element really isn't any different.  If
they are semantically distinct enough -- if a shuffle isn't really a
"variant" of random but is just "something different", then it would be
more appropriate for an AIML interpreter that didn't know about it to
raise an error, rather than to treat it in some default way.  It would
not, for instance, be appropriate for a bot that was simulating a card
game to use a "default" random such as the one we've currently got -- it
would be better for the bot to loudly fail to understand.

If people are willing to discuss this further, I think I should withdraw
the motion and return this to discussion mode.

On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 20:19, Dr. Richard S. Wallace wrote:
> Uh, we...are...taking....a....summer...vacation.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Rich
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Noel Bush" <noel@alicebot.org>
> To: "Alicebot and AIML Architecture Committee"
> <alicebot-archcomm@list.alicebot.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 9:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [alicebot-archcomm] [motion] <shuffle>
> 
> 
> > On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 19:27, Conan Callen wrote:
> > > 1. Will the <random> remain, or will <shuffle> obsolete <random>
> >
> > I think <random> should remain.  I actually think that <shuffle> will
> > turn out to be more useful than <random>, but there's no reason to
> > remove <random>.
> >
> > > 2. When the deck is shuffled, it is possible that the last card will be
> the
> > > first card after the shuffle. If this is not the desired behavior, you
> might
> > > insert some text that says something to the effect "while insuring that
> the
> > > last li child returned will not be the first li child returned after the
> > > shuffle" at the point marked by <INSERTED HERE>.
> > >
> > > then the status of the shuffle is reset  as though none of its li
> children
> > > have been returned to the current user by the AIML interpreter for
> > > the current bot <INSERTED HERE>, and a selection is made
> > > according to the first rule.
> >
> > Yes, that's an interesting point.
> >
> > > 3. Also the link to the Aiml schema on
> > > http://alicebot.org/committees/aimlSchema.html is broken.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > alicebot-archcomm mailing list
> > alicebot-archcomm@list.alicebot.org
> > http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo/alicebot-archcomm
> 
> _______________________________________________
> alicebot-archcomm mailing list
> alicebot-archcomm@list.alicebot.org
> http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo/alicebot-archcomm
>