Problem-solving techniques such as modeling, simulation, optimization, and network analysis have been used extensively to help agricultural scientists and practitioners understand and control biological systems. By their nature, most of these systems are difficult to quantitatively define. Many of the models and simulations that have been developed lack a user interface which enables people other than the developer to use them. As a result, several scientists are integrating knowledge-based- system (KBS) technology with conventional problem-solving techniques to increase the robustness and usability of their systems. To investigate the similarities and differences of leading scientists' approaches, a pioneer workshop, supported by the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) and the Knowledge Systems Area of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, was held in San Antonio, Texas, on 10-12 August 1988. Part of the AAAI Applied Workshop Series, the meeting was intended to bring together researchers and practitioners active in applying AI concepts to agricultural problems.

It 445 Burgess Drive In spite of the many strong technical was generally agreed that the formalization Menlo Park, CA 94025-3496 results that have been produced, it is of commonsense reasoning (415) 328-3123 still far from clear whether existing should be a top-level item for future approaches are sufficient to formalize research.

The emergence of the blackboard architecture as a widely used paradigm for problem solving led us and other members of the blackboard research community to organize a workshop. The workshop was held during the 1987 Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence Conference in Seattle. The main purpose of the workshop was to highlight the advances in blackboard architectures since the introduction of the paradigm in Hearsay-II and identify issues relevant to future blackboard system research. This article describes the issues raised and the discussions in each of the five workshop panels.

The notion of generic design, although it has been around for 25 years, is not often articulated; such is especially true within Newell and Simon's (1972) information-processing theory (IPT) framework. Design is merely lumped in with other forms of problem-solving activity. Intuitively, one feels there should be a level of description of the phenomenon that refines this broad classification by further distinguishing between design and nondesign problem solving. However, IPT does not facilitate such problem classification. This article makes a preliminary attempt to differentiate design problem solving from nondesign problem solving by identifying major invariants in the design problem space.

The Fourth Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence workshop was held 19-21 August 1988. The workshop featured significant developments in application of theories of representation and reasoning under uncertainty. A recurring idea at the workshop was the need to examine uncertainty calculi in the context of choosing representation, inference, and control methodologies. The effectiveness of these choices in AI systems tends to be best considered in terms of specific problem areas. These areas include automated planning, temporal reasoning, computer vision, medical diagnosis, fault detection, text analysis, distributed systems, and behavior of nonlinear systems. Influence diagrams are emerging as a unifying representation, enabling tool development. Interest and results in uncertainty in AI are growing beyond the capacity of a workshop format.

The following is a synopsis of the findings of the first AAAI Workshop on AI Applications to Battle Management held at the University of Washington, 16 July 1987. The workshop organizer, Pete Bonasso, sent a point paper to a number of invited presenters giving his opinion of what AI could and could not do for battle management. This paper served as a focus for the workshop presentations and discussions and was augmented by the workshop presentations; it can also serve as a roadmap of topics for future workshops. AI can provide battle management with such capabilities as sensor data fusion and adaptive simulations. Also, several key needs in battle management will be AI research topics for years to come, such as understanding free text and inferencing in real time. Finally, there are several areas -- cooperating systems and terrain reasoning, for example -- where, given some impetus, AI might be able to provide help in the near future.

Sometimes less ambiguous, are extremely complex.

This is a summary of the Workshop on Planning that was sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency and held in Santa Cruz, California, on October 21-23, 1987. The purpose of this workshop was to identify and explore new directions for research in planning.

We offer a simple mechanism, that of metalingual definition (D. G. Hays, The Meaning of a Term is a Function of the Theory in Which It Occurs, SIGLASH Newsletter, 1973, 6, 4:S-11).

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.