An informal workshop on concurrent logic programming, metaprogramming, and open systems was held at Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) on 8-9 September 1987 with support from the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. The 50 workshop participants came from the Japanese Fifth Generation Project (ICOT), the Weizmann Institute of Sci-ence in Israel, Imperial College in London, the Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Stanford University, the Mas-sachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), Cal Tech, Science University of Tokyo, Melbourne University, Calgary University, University of Wisconsin, Case Western Reserve, University of Oregon, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Quintus, Symbolics, IBM, and Xerox PARC. No proceedings were generated; instead, participants distributed copies of drafts, slides, and recent papers.

An informal workshop on concurrent logic programming, metaprogramming, and open systems was held at Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) on 8-9 September 1987 with support from the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. The 50 workshop participants came from the Japanese Fifth Generation Project (ICOT), the Weizmann Institute of Sci-ence in Israel, Imperial College in London, the Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Stanford University, the Mas-sachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), Cal Tech, Science University of Tokyo, Melbourne University, Calgary University, University of Wisconsin, Case Western Reserve, University of Oregon, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Quintus, Symbolics, IBM, and Xerox PARC. No proceedings were generated; instead, participants distributed copies of drafts, slides, and recent papers.

Real-time domains present a new and challenging environment for the application of knowledge-based problem-solving techniques. However, a substantial amount of research is still needed to solve many difficult problems before real-time expert systems can enhance current monitoring and control systems. In this article, we examine how the real-time problem domain is significantly different from those domains which have traditionally been solved by expert systems. We conduct a survey on the current state of the art in applying knowledge-based systems to real-time problems and describe the key issues that are pertinent in a real-time domain. The survey is divided into three areas: applications, tools, and theoretic issues. From the results of the survey, we identify a set of real-time research issues that have yet to be solved and point out limitations of current tools for real-time problems. Finally, we propose a set of requirements that a real-time knowledge-based system must satisfy.

A number of tools that support the development, execution, and maintenance of knowledge-based systems are marketed commercially. Many of these tools, however, are designed for applications that can be executed on personal computers and are not suitable for building large knowledge-based systems. The market for knowledge engineering tools designed for applications that require the computational power of a Lisp machine or an engineering workstation is dominated by a few vendors. This article is an assessment of the current state of tools used to build large knowledge-based systems. This assessment is based on the collective strengths and weaknesses of several tools that have been evaluated. In addition, an estimate is made of the features that will be required in the next generation of tools.

The annual conference of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) is the largest and most important meeting of AI theoreticians and practitioners in the United States. This year, the conference was held in Seattle, Wash., and paid attendance was just under 5100. Last year's Philadelphia conference drew 5400. The drop in attendance was primarily the result of competition with the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, which took place in Milan a few weeks after AAAI.

This article presents an approach to a graduate-level course in expert, knowledge-based, problem-solving systems. The core of the course, and this article, is a set of questions called a profile, that can be used to characterize and compare each system studied.

Presented is a discussion of several issues raised during the workshop sponsored by the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence on Coupling Symbolic and Numeric Computing in Expert Systems, which was held on 27 to 29 August 1987 in Seattle, Washington. Issues include the definition of coupled systems, motivations for coupling, coupled system architectures, and key factors in the design of coupled systems.

This article discusses several effective techniques for expert system knowledge acquisition based on the techniques that were successfully used to develop the Central Office Maintenance Printout Analysis and Suggestion System (COMPASS). Knowledge acquisition is not a science, and expert system developers and experts must tailor their methodologies to fit their situation and the people involved. Developers of future expert systems should find a description of proven knowledge-acquisition techniques and an account of the experience of the COMPASS project in applying these techniques to be useful in developing their own knowledge-acquisition procedures.

The first step in the development of an expert system is the extraction and characterization of the knowledge and skills of an expert. This step is widely regarded as the major bottleneck in the system development process. To assist knowledge engineers and others who might be interested in the development of an expert system, I offer (1) a working classification of methods for extracting an expert's knowledge, (2) some ideas about the types of data that the methods yield, and (3) a set of criteria by which the methods can be compared relative to the needs of the system developer. The discussion highlights certain issues, including the contrast between the empirical approach taken by experimental psychologists and the formalism-oriented approach that is generally taken by cognitive scientists.

Review of Expert Micros