Based on the experience in manufacturing production scheduling problems which the AI community has amassed over the last ten years, a workshop was held to provide a forum for discussion of the issues encountered in the design of AI-based scheduling systems. Several topics were addressed including: the relative virtues of expert system, deep method, and interactive approaches, the balance between predictive and reactive components in a scheduling system, the maintenance of convenient scheduling descriptions, the application of the ideas of chaos theory to scheduling, the state of the art in schedulers which learn, and the practicality and desirability of a set of benchmark scheduling problems. This article expands on these issues, abstracts the papers which were presented, and summarizes the lengthy discussions that took place.

There is a great disparity between the number of papers which have been published about AI-based manufacturing scheduling tools and the number of systems which are in daily use by manufacturing engineers. It is argued that this is not a reflection of inadequate AI technology, but is rather indicative of lack of a systems perspective by AI practitioners and their manufacturing customers. Case studies to support this perspective are presented by Carnegie Group as a builder of scheduling systems for its customers, by Texas Instruments and Intel Corporation as builders of schedulers for their own use, and by Intellection as a consulting house specializing in scheduling problems.

Based on the experience in manufacturing production scheduling problems which the AI community has amassed over the last ten years, a workshop was held to provide a forum for discussion of the issues encountered in the design of AI-based scheduling systems. Several topics were addressed including : the relative virtues of expert system, deep method, and interactive approaches, the balance between predictive and reactive components in a scheduling system, the maintenance of convenient scheduling descriptions, the application of the ideas of chaos theory to scheduling, the state of the art in schedulers which learn, and the practicality and desirability of a set of benchmark scheduling problems. This article expands on these issues, abstracts the papers which were presented, and summarizes the lengthy discussions that took place.

The second workshop in two years on the integration of knowledge-based systems with conventional computer techniques in agriculture and natural resource management (NRM) was held 18-19 August 1989 in Detroit, Michigan, in conjunction with the Tenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. The workshop drew scientists from the United States and Canada, working in disciplines from engineering to entomology in universities, government, and industry. Twenty-two papers were presented at the workshop, after which participants were asked to discuss several key questions about the development, delivery, and use of knowledge-based systems in solving problems in agriculture and NRM.

The vendors Based Systems, 355 pp., and Volume 2, techniques. They are interesting of knowledge-based-systems development Knowledge Acquisition Tools for Expert and informative, particularly tools, for example, Inference, Systems, 343 pp., Academic Press, San "Generalization and Noise" by Y. IntelliCorp, Aion, AI Corp., and IBM, Diego, California, 1988), edited by B. Kodratoff and M. Manango, which would do well to pay heed to these R. Gaines and J. H. Boose, is an excellent discusses symbolic and numeric rule books because they point the way to collection of papers useful to both induction.

A panel session at the 1989 International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Los Angeles dealt with the subject of knowledge-based systems; the session was entitled "Expert Systems: How Far Can They Go?" The panelists included Randall Davis (Massachusetts Institute of Technology); Stuart Dreyfus (University of California at Berkeley); Brian Smith (Xerox Palo Alto Research Center); and Terry Winograd (Stanford University), chairman. Part 1 of this article, which appeared in the Spring 1989 issue, began with Winograd's original charge to the panel, followed by lightly edited transcripts of presentations from Winograd and Dreyfus. Part 2 begins with the presentations from Smith and Davis and concludes with the panel discussion.

A panel session at the 1989 International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Los Angeles dealt with the subject of knowledge-based systems; the session was entitled "Expert Systems: How Far Can They Go?" The panelists included Randall Davis (Massachusetts Institute of Technology); Stuart Dreyfus (University of California at Berkeley); Brian Smith (Xerox Palo Alto Research Center); and Terry Winograd (Stanford University), chairman. Part 1 of this article, which appeared in the Spring 1989 issue, began with Winograd's original charge to the panel, followed by lightly edited transcripts of presentations from Winograd and Dreyfus. Part 2 begins with the presentations from Smith and Davis and concludes with the panel discussion. Although almost four years have passed since this discussion took place, the issues raised and the points discussed appear no less relevant today.

A panel session at the 1989 International Joint Conference on artificial intelligence in Los Angeles dealt with the subject of knowledge-based systems; the session was entitled "Expert Systems: How Far Can They Go?" The panelists included Randall Davis (Massachusetts Institute of Technology); Stuart Dreyfus (University of California at Berkeley); Brian Smith (Xerox Palo Alto Research Center); and Terry Winograd (Stanford University), chairman. Part 1 includes presentations from Winograd and Dreyfus. Part 2, which will appear in the Summer 1989 issue, includes presentations from Smith and Davis and concludes with the panel discussion.

A panel session at the 1989 International Joint Conference on artificial intelligence in Los Angeles dealt with the subject of knowledge-based systems; the session was entitled "Expert Systems: How Far Can They Go?" The panelists included Randall Davis (Massachusetts Institute of Technology); Stuart Dreyfus (University of California at Berkeley); Brian Smith (Xerox Palo Alto Research Center); and Terry Winograd (Stanford University), chairman. The article begins with Winograd's original charge to the panel, followed by lightly edited transcripts of the panel's remarks. Part 1 includes presentations from Winograd and Dreyfus. Part 2, which will appear in the Summer 1989 issue, includes presentations from Smith and Davis and concludes with the panel discussion. Although three years have passed since this session took place, the issues raised and the points discussed are no less relevant today.