[alicebot-general] AIML specs

[mehri]

> There are still some of us that try to implement the full AIML standards even though they do have missing specifications.  
> I submit there will be more changes to come before the AIML standard accomplishes its true goal.

Good points.  I wonder what the "true goal" of the AIML standard is though?

Looking at the spec here:
http://www.alicebot.org/TR/2001/WD-aiml/

I see that the spec hasn't been updated in 5 years and is listed as a working draft.  The arch committee AIML list has been quiet for a long time.  If you look at its archive:

http://list.alicebot.org/pipermail/alicebot-archcomm/

There's only been roll call this year.  The posting before that was 2004.  It's been dorminate for 2 years.

I say we finish this 1.0.1 spec once and for all.  Lots of people must know about the missing portions of it that should be filled.  I'll start with a type-o that should be corrected:

                 user> He did it.             
                              bot> Who?             
                              bot> Joe.             
                 bot> Oh, why do you think he did that? I wouldn't expect that kind of behavior from Joe.

That should be:

                 user> He did it.             
                                bot> Who?             
               user> Joe.             
                  bot> Oh, why do you think he did that? I wouldn't expect that kind of behavior from Joe.
 



----- Original Message ----
From: Gary Dubuque <gdubuque at scattercreek.com>
To: mehri <foreverlinux at yahoo.com>; Alicebot and AIML General    Discussion <alicebot-general at list.alicebot.org>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 11:08:38 PM
Subject: Re: [alicebot-general] alicebot-general Digest, Vol 9, Issue 13

Howdy all,

There are still some of us that try to implement the full AIML standards even though they do have missing specifications.  And no, I don't think this is like Java where extensions spoil the ability to interpret AIML.  If you decide to take advantage of extensions, you choose on your own to limit your set to the proper interpreters (or to incomplete interpreters as you might have.)  Enough said.

The whole technology of computers always bears the burden of adapting to changes.  To say legacy systems destroy the ability to innovate is dogma for the software priests.  Without philosophy which created logic which enabled the math, there would be no computers as we know them.  It is that philosophy in action that can bring life to bots.  Do you think AIML is a finished philosophy?  I submit there will be more changes to come before the AIML standard accomplishes its true goal.

Cheers,
  Gary Dubuque, putting the "mind" back into bots