[alicebot-archcomm] Welcome new Arch Comm member

[Gary Dubuque]

This might be a side track, but...

Don Knuth, who has cataloged most of the computer algorithms known today,
has a similar problem in describing how the processes work.  Here's comments
on the hard core solution to specifications...

"Moreover, if I did use a high-level language, what language should it be?
In the 1960s I would probably have chosen Algol W; in the 1970s, I would
then have had to rewrite my books using Pascal; in the 1980s, I would surely
have changed everything to C; in the 1990s, I would have had to switch to
C++ and then probably to Java. In the 2000s, yet another language will no
doubt be de rigueur. I cannot afford the time to rewrite my books as
languages go in and out of fashion; languages aren't the point of my books,
the point is rather what you can do in your favorite language. My books
focus on timeless truths."

"Therefore I will continue to use English as the high-level language in The
Art Of Computer Programming (TAOCP), and I will continue to use a low-level
language (MMIX) to indicate how machines actually compute. Readers who only
want to see algorithms that are already packaged in a plug-in way, using a
trendy language, should buy other people's books."

So obviously there is a real problem in picking a formal definition for
Alice computing.  We have Alice engines in Pascal, Perl, Java, C++, etc.  A
language to pick for describing how it works could be seen as a biased
opinion.  Although I agree that mathematics is good neutral ground for these
things.

On the other hand, standards like XML and HTML have found a format that
explains what they are.  It is a very predefined and formal process to
adoption.  Was the Architecture Committee at one time heading in that
direction?



-----Original Message-----
From: alicebot-archcomm-admin@list.alicebot.org
[mailto:alicebot-archcomm-admin@list.alicebot.org]On Behalf Of Dr. Rich
Wallace
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 12:26 AM
To: alicebot-archcomm@list.alicebot.org
Subject: RE: [alicebot-archcomm] Welcome new Arch Comm member


The stanard is very stable :-)  Nobody has modified it for a while.

I am also working on another approach to the formal specification, under
"Program M" in the downloads section of the alicebot.org web site.
http://www.alicebot.org/SETL.txt

If I had to explain the difference between the two, it might be that a
standards committee and a mathematical computer scientist have different
definitions of the term "formal specification."


> Before I launch off into some discussion about improvements to AIML or
> the structure of the Alice organization I'd like to find the ground
> rules.
>
> Where are the specifications for AIML?  The last document I have is
> called "A.L.I.C.E. AI Foundation Working Draft 25 October 2001 (rev
> 006)".  Is there some document we can continue to publish with
> "official" tacked to it? Maybe something without the "Working Draft"
> label?
>
> Then next I'd tackle some house cleaning like the few little subjects
> I've already asked.  Can we agree that the last sentence is the one used
> to match against <that>? (I think so.)  Can we agree that a pattern with
> multiple adjacent wildcards consumes individual words until the last
> wild card in the series? (I hope so.)
>
> Implementation orientated, do stars nest through <srai> tags so when you
> use them after </srai> they are from the current context and not from
> the last match that took place, that is, not inherited?
>
> These first few issues seem to be a good format for making things become
> established.  I really don't know how this process works yet.  Once I
> understand the way we complete our decisions, I can feel comfortable in
> exploring what practically can be done to improve the standard.
> Improvement is what we are striving for, isn't it?
>
> Regards,
>   Gary Dubuque
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: alicebot-archcomm-admin@list.alicebot.org
> [mailto:alicebot-archcomm-admin@list.alicebot.org]On Behalf Of Dr. Rich
> Wallace
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 1:25 AM
> To: alicebot-archcomm@alicebot.org
> Subject: [alicebot-archcomm] Welcome new Arch Comm member
>
>
>
> Let's have a warm Arch Comm welcome for our newest member Gary Dubuque
> of Program N fame.
>
> Gary, just to bring you up to speed, the two hot topics on this mailing
> list right now have nothing to do with AIML standards:
>
> 1. Should Arch Comm members also be dues paying members of the A.I.
> Foundation?
>
> 2. Should code posted to the mailing lists be considered public domain
> and if so, under which license?
>
> (This leads me to think there should be a meta-topic, should the Arch
> Comm even be the appropirate forum for these questions, or should the
> people who want to disucss these issues become members of the
> now-dormant Advisory Board?)
>
>
> --
> Dr. Rich
> W A L L A C E
> ALICE A.I. Foundation
> drwallace@www.alicebot.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


--
Dr. Rich
W A L L A C E
ALICE A.I. Foundation
drwallace@www.alicebot.org




_______________________________________________
alicebot-archcomm mailing list
alicebot-archcomm@list.alicebot.org
http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo/alicebot-archcomm