[alicebot-archcomm] FW: FW: request for inclusion

[Andrew Teal]

I think this supporting statement should be included here ...

In view of my previous post I have reservations about the quoted
messages, but have been persuaded to include them as necessary
background. I agree the issues discussed there should not be re-hashed.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Noel Bush [mailto:noel at aitools.org] 
Sent: 18 October 2006 15:09
To: Andrew Teal
Subject: Re: FW: request for inclusion

As far as the "historical problems" go, I most recently went over some 
of my own views of things in these couple of messages:
http://list.alicebot.org/pipermail/pandorabots-general/2006-May/001533.h
tml
http://list.alicebot.org/pipermail/pandorabots-general/2006-May/001539.h
tml

But I really have no desire to hash over that stuff anymore, especially 
not in a forum that is supposed to be devoted to the AIML specification.

I will say the following, to support my inclusion in the mailing list:

* I conceived of the idea of an "architecture committee" (modeling and 
naming it after what I saw going on in an international organization 
dedicated to building standards for multiagent systems).

* I wrote the first comprehensive formal specification for AIML, modeled

on similar documents from the W3C for various standards, and referencing

them and other similar docs as much as possible.  This specification 
was, of course, the main project of the archcomm mailing list, and much 
of what I was doing was simply formalizing what was already agreed upon,

or what was settled during archcomm discussions.  There were 6 revisions

published, before it sat unchanged for 4 years.  The only changes 
recently made comprised a minor correction to the <person> and <person2>

definitions, and the restoration of credit (in some torturous fashion) 
to me, after it was nearly eliminated in the 7th revision.

* I was a primary driver for completeness, precision, and non-redundancy

in hashing out the formal definition of AIML.  Again, not claiming 
exclusivity here, but I think I was particularly passionate about 
drilling down to details in some areas that didn't necessarily seem so 
significant in those days when there were far fewer AIML interpreters in

the world.

* I also wrote the first comprehensive XML schema for AIML (there was a 
DTD a few years back, but it didn't cover nearly as much), and have 
continued to maintain that.

* I have rewritten every line of Program D, in many cases multiple 
times.  Though I left it untended for a couple of years, it was still 
the most popular "AIML interpreter" out there.  In the last couple of 
years I've been very actively working with it.  It's very stable, it 
performs well, it integrates well, and it remains the most complete 
implementation of the AIML spec that there is.  Despite the fact that 
Program D gets the most measly treatment on alicebot.org, people still 
manage to find it and make enormous use of it.  I hear from new people 
all the time about it.  It serves as a de facto reference implementation

of AIML.  Frank (mehri) will confirm this, as will other authors of AIML

interpreters.  I have great relationships with authors of other AIML 
interpreters.  Frankly, I hope that one of these days I can switch away 
from using Program D, because I am sick to death of Java.  But I'm 
sticking by it for the foreseeable future because it does the job well. 
  I don't say this out of any egotism, but I do wish that these facts 
were more clearly reflected in public resources like alicebot.org.

The AIML spec, the AIML schema, and Program D have all served as 
reference material for the implementation of numerous other AIML 
interpreters in virtually every popular programming language out there. 
  I *am* proud of that.  I don't claim to be an "inventor" in any of 
this, and I don't claim to be the best programmer, the sharpest thinker,

the best writer, or the best anything.  But I can state that the work 
I've done has been useful and valuable to quite a number of people, not 
the least of whom is Richard Wallace.  Business disagreements, 
personality conflicts, and all that other stuff is certainly nasty, but 
doesn't change the reality (even if it may result in a very skewed 
version of the reality being presented on alicebot.org).

Once upon a time we had a thriving, active group of mailing lists 
centered around AIML, and the archcomm list was, for me, the most 
interesting.  There were a lot of very sharp people participating, from 
a variety of fascinating backgrounds, working on cool projects.  I was 
learning all the time, and really appreciated the dialogue, which was 
for surprisingly long stretches able to maintain a civility and level of

pertinence to the subject matter that's rare in such an open 
environment.  I doubt those days will return, but at the very least I'd 
like to be a part of any new discussions about AIML, at least within the

context of alicebot.org, which I'll suspend disbelief and regard as that

"neutral ground" we were always seeking, so long as it's possible for me

to do so.

Noel

Andrew Teal wrote:
> From an aiml standpoint, this is a no-brainer -- if Noel Bush would 
> like to contribute, it can only be beneficial to the community.
> 
> On a personal level, though, there are historical problems which need 
> approaching and tackling calmly and in a spirit of reconciliation if 
> the obvious benefits of the above are to be realised.
> 
> I also think any discussion should be on the list!
> 
> Andrew.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noel Bush [mailto:noel at aitools.org]
> Sent: 18 October 2006 02:00
> To: drwallace at alicebot.org; daanens at hotmail.com; sandro.g at ai-tech.com;
> scheuring at gmail.com; ernest at virtualitas.net; foreverlinux at yahoo.com;
> Andrew Teal
> Subject: request for inclusion
> 
> 
> Hi archcomm mailing list members,
> 
> I would like to request that the archcomm mailing list members add me 
> to
> 
> the mailing list.  It would be easier to participate in the 
> discussions
> that way.  I have a few thoughts to share here and there, and I know
the
> 
> spec pretty well.  :-)
> 
> Thanks,
> Noel
> 

This transmission is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you receive it in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and remove it from your system. If the content of this e-mail does not relate to the business of the University of Huddersfield, then we do not endorse it and will accept no liability.