[alicebot-archcomm] Another suggestion for AIML architecture

[Gary Dubuque]

The proposal was more to limit the number of new tags popping up orientated
towards each platform.  It wasn't necessarily to  define or limit the
open-ended nature of <system>.  It was to give a clean way out for what is
already happening which slowly factors the standard.

-----Original Message-----
From: alicebot-archcomm-admin@list.alicebot.org
[mailto:alicebot-archcomm-admin@list.alicebot.org]On Behalf Of Dr. Rich
Wallace
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 11:24 AM
To: alicebot-archcomm@list.alicebot.org
Subject: Re: [alicebot-archcomm] Another suggestion for AIML
architecture


You've hit upon one of least well defined areas of AIML here Gary.

One of the difficulties here is that, even if we specify the existence of
a general <system> tag like you've proposed, it still makes a lot of
assumptions about the run-time environment.

For example, Does <system>X</system> start a new process?  And, if not,
can it hold up the AIML parser forever if X does not return?

Say two calls to <system> occur in two templates, is there any sharing of
run-time information possible between them?

Another issue that came up, was, does the <system> or <javascript>
environment have access to the objects of the underlying AIML interpreter?
 Is there a convention to access, for example, the binding of the AIML
"star" from inside the script?

The more I think about these problems, the more confused I get.  The idea
of a <system> tag is simple.  But spelling out its exact behavior in a
language-independent, platform independent way is not.

I tend to think that the ad hoc solutions adopted by each interpreter are
going to be around for a while.

> There are several versions of the AIML engine, each specialized in an
> operating environment, that is, a language.  We have Program E which
> prefers PHP.  We have Program V which uses Perl.  Of course there is the
> Program D which is Java.  Program N written in C++ (or Program J if you
> prefer.)  And Program P for Pascal.  Program Z for Lisp.
>
> Each of these (except J and possibly P) have extended the AIML standard
> to include the language best for their environment.  Starting with D we
> have <javascript>.  In E we get <php>.  In V we get <perl>.  In N we get
> <script>.  Does Z have <lisp>? And in each we have <system> which
> probably is different for all.
>
> I propose that we create a standard tag for extensions to the language
> that is best for the platform.  In html it is called <script> and it
> adapts to what the browser can handle by an attribute.  I wouldn't
> really want to confuse the html with aiml, so I suggest we improve the
> <system> tag (although I am surely open for debate here since html and
> aiml should work together and share functions like formatting -
> including scripting.) Instead of <perl> we could write <system
> language="perl">.  Instead of <php> we could write <system
> language="php">.  This would allow the aiml standard to have a fixed
> specification for any future API or languages that might benefit the
> aiml engine.  A <system> without the language attribute would operate
> either as the preferred language of the engine or as the existing
> <system> does now.  Actually the existing definition for <system> means
> no single implementation of <system> acts as it does now, since by the
> standard it is platform dependent.  Which is exactly what the new
> additional tags seem to be doing and want to do.  They are enhancements
> for the platform in which they run.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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