[alicebot-archcomm] Another suggestion for AIML architecture

[ccallen]

> There is no need to change the specs, my opinion is to keep them both as
> optional

I agree. Implementors should feel free to be creative.

This same discussion has come up many times in the past, every time a new
idea comes up must immediately be made part of the spec. My favorite answer
to this situation is for the implementer to just do it on thier own. If it's
a good idea, it may find its way into the spec on its own (however, it is
possible the originator of the idea may not get due credit for the idea
(gasp!)). If, after implementing and testing a new feature in a production
environment, it turns out not to be such a good idea then it wont be caught
up in the spec.

Sure, this will lead to multiple implementations that are not compatible
with each other or the spec, but it's possible to create a perl script that
converts an aiml set that targets engine A to work with engine B. I prefer
the aiml compiler / preprocessor approach. It doesn't matter what the input
aiml looks like, it all gets compiled to the same internal representation.

Getting caught up in the minimalists / experimentalist camps discussion can
be a drag on creative and innovative energies. If you have a good idea, just
do it.

Conan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandro Golinelli" <sandro.golinelli@tin.it>
To: <alicebot-archcomm@list.alicebot.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 3:16 AM
Subject: RE: [alicebot-archcomm] Another suggestion for AIML architecture


>
>
> At 21.25 03/03/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>
> >AIML can't be exchanged gracefully without the path for degradation in
> >astire environments.  AIML per se is not designed to be a front-end to
> >back-end database processing or calculating and/or logic crunching
machines.
> >It is just being used in that manner because it is so powerful while
still
> >being so simple.
>
> i think we should watch out for what AIML is used by botmasters.
> For example there are a lot of line of aiml code do just an integer
addition.
>
( http://www.aiml.info/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownload&cid=2 )
>
> have AIML to be so, for just an integer addition?
> at the same time AIML should not "degrade" to an ACME product ;-)
>
> >Lets remove <javascript> and <system>.  The only one we could possibly
> >depend upon is <javascript> but it doesn't have a consistent object model
to
> >script.  On the other hand, standards like HTML do have a document model.
>
> There is no need to change the specs, my opinion is to keep them both as
> optional, meanwhile a "research" on a AIML DOM API and/or an AIML "script"
> processor would be interesting?
>
> --
> sandro
>
> _______________________________________________
> alicebot-archcomm mailing list
> alicebot-archcomm@list.alicebot.org
> http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo/alicebot-archcomm
>