[alicebot-archcomm] Program D and ArchComm

Tue, 21 May 2002 04:38:21 -0700

This is a hard question answer without bringing up "Board business", but I
will try.

For a long time now I have been saying that the Foundation has three main
intellectual "property" (but not really, since we give it away) products:

(1). The AIML language itself.  The standard, the spec, the syntax and
semantics of AIML.  Pretty much the job of this committee is to define that
standard.

(2). Free software to implement (1).  This is the Foundation reference
implementation of the AIML standard, as well as other AIML tools people have
donated to us.   The major project in this category is Program D.

(3) The contents of the ALICE brain and other free AIML sets.

For my money, number (2) is becoming less important over time, as other
people and companies begin to implement our standard.  The same thing
happened in the early days of the W3C, when they implemented a reference
browser and a reference server.  These were quickly overtaken by bigger
projects like Mosaic, Netscape, I.E. and Apache.

A key question too is "who owns the copyright?".  In the case of (1) and (3)
that would be the ALICE A.I. Foundation, Inc.(*)  I'm pretty sure it is
still the case with program D, eh?

We have an organizational chart, or I should say a draft of one, for the
Foundation.  If there was a software development branch of the Foundation
(which, curiously, there is not, yet), then I suppose Noel would be the
Interim (**) Director of Software Development.  There should be a job
description associated with that Directorship, so that if we got a million
dollars tomorrow Noel could be replaced with a paid professional (even
himself :-).

To avoid political conflicts and keep a professional tone, the Director of
Software Development would specifically not be advised by the Board, this
committee, or anyone except the President and CEO.   The DSD job description
would spell out their duties to implement the AIML reference standard,
presumably in Java, as specified in document so-and-so.

It goes without saying that there is a huge gap between this utopian vision
of how the Foundation should work and the present reality.

The organizational chart is a JPEG too big to post to this forum but I will
be happy to send a copy to anyone who requests it.

Rich

(*) Anyone who says there is no clear boundary between me and the Foundation
should bear in mind that the Foundation, not me, owns these copyrights now.
I won't live forever, and I want this work to carry on after I am gone.  If
the Foundation follows its mission statement and obeys the laws of the State
of California, "adoption of AIML" will happen with or without me.

There have also been cases of founding Board members being ousted by their
hand-picked successors.  Remember, this once happened to Steven Jobs at
Apple.  So, anything is possible, even while I am still alive :-)  But
again, if the Foundation sticks to the mission statement and follows the
laws, I shouldn't even be too worried about that far fetched possibility.

(**) Generally, it is frowned upon for Board members to also hold
Directorships in the organization.

Rich

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ann
e Kootstra" <AKootstra@interplein.nl>
To: <alicebot-archcomm@list.alicebot.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 12:37 AM
Subject: RE: [alicebot-archcomm] Program D and ArchComm

> So, if I've read this correctly, you are the person whe decides on the
> features regarding the development of "D", Kim regarding "E" and Paul for
> "P". Don't get me wrong, this makes sense since it is your time you are
> investing. It's just that I wanted to know the official word.
>
> --Anne
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: alicebot-archcomm-admin@list.alicebot.org
> [mailto:alicebot-archcomm-admin@list.alicebot.org]Namens Noel Bush
> Verzonden: maandag 20 mei 2002 22:49
> Aan: Alicebot and AIML Architecture Committee
> Onderwerp: Re: [alicebot-archcomm] Program D and ArchComm
>
>
> On Tue, 2002-05-21 at 00:34, Anne Kootstra wrote:
> > One thing that has been bugging me for quite some time now is: "What
part
> > does the ArchComm play in the development of Program D?" This may be a
> > touchy topic but its something that sometimes confusing me when I get
the
> > feeling that the topic on the table has little to do with the AIML
> > specification and more with the interpreter.
>
> Here's my version:
>
> Specifications can be designed by committee, but designing software by
> committee seems to be an ugly an inadvisable endeavor.  For a while,
> Program D was standing as the "official" implementation for the
> Foundation, simply because as the most actively used and developed
> public codebase it provided the most reasonable basis upon which to try
> to stabilize a specification for AIML.  But we've come a long way, and I
> think that Paul Rydell's and Kim Sullivan's recent work has proven that
> we've reached a point where this point is no longer a reason to give
> Program D any special status.  In fact, we are in the process of adding
> Program E and Program P to the Foundation CVS repository at this very
> moment.
>
> Anybody who wants to thumb their nose at Java (not that this is what
> Paul and Kim are doing by any means) now has a specification they can
> follow to implement an AIML interpreter in whatever language looks like
> fun.  :-)  Seriously, there is no reason anymore to regard Program D as
> the authoritative AIML interpreter.  There might be other reasons to
> regard it as a good choice for a lot of purposes, such as those listed
> by Paul Rydell in a recent mail to alicebot-general.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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