[alicebot-archcomm] Another suggestion for AIML architecture

[Gary Dubuque]

Thank you.  I always respect your point of view.  I think I'd abbreviate the
tag to <shell language="PHP">, etc.  The word "serverside" seems to be a
mouthful.  The word "shell" seems to denote the same thing.  Leaving the OS
functions in <system> seems to be an excellent solution when you consider
its real purpose.

Best regards,
  Gary Dubuque
  An AIML Grasshopper

-----Original Message-----
From: alicebot-archcomm-admin@list.alicebot.org
[mailto:alicebot-archcomm-admin@list.alicebot.org]On Behalf Of Anne
Kootstra
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 3:47 PM
To: alicebot-archcomm@list.alicebot.org
Subject: RE: [alicebot-archcomm] Another suggestion for AIML
architecture


New tags will arise, this is something that's impossible to stop. Some
platforms simply offer a functionality that's easy to implement, but hard or
impossible on others. It's evolution, and just like in nature not all
adaptations become general traits of the species.

My view on <system> is that it allows access to the underlying OS, which is
always platform depended. This is pretty straightforward and in my opinion
has very little to do with Perl, PHP, Java and C++. These are server side
scripting languages and have as little to do with the underlying OS as AIML
has to do with server side scripting languages. For this reason I'm not in
favour of your suggestion. It confuses more than it solves.

Some time ago, and I tried to look for it in the archives but couldn't find
anything, the suggestion was made to create a single tag for all the server
side scripting languages and identifying them by a namespace. Something
like:

<serverside language="PHP"> some scripting </serverside>
<serverside language="Perl"> some scripting </serverside>
<serverside language="C++"> some scripting </serverside>

This would work with the underlying idea that if an interpreter doesn't
support this particular scripting language it still recognize it as server
side script and but would ignore the scripting and that way not send the
entire source code as text to the visitor.

I think Noel and Jon Baer did some preliminary work on it but I couldn't
find it in the archives. Perhaps someone else can. I'd favour this, since it
does cover the ongoing trend of support for server side scripting, while
maintaining the interchange ability of an AIML set between different AIML
interpreters.

--Anne

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: alicebot-archcomm-admin@list.alicebot.org
> [mailto:alicebot-archcomm-admin@list.alicebot.org] Namens Gary Dubuque
> Verzonden: vrijdag 28 februari 2003 22:33
> Aan: alicebot-archcomm@list.alicebot.org
> Onderwerp: RE: [alicebot-archcomm] Another suggestion for
> AIML architecture
>
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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