Hutchins not only presents machine translation research (such as problems of machine translation It is the theories, algorithms, and designs practical versus theoretical, empirical also not clear that the AI philosophy but also the history, goals, assumptions, versus perfectionist, and direct versus of understanding and meaning (p 327) and constraints of each project.

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.

Decision theory and nonmonotonic logics are formalisms that can be employed to represent and solve problems of planning under uncertainty. We analyze the usefulness of these two approaches by establishing a simple correspondence between the two formalisms. The analysis indicates that planning using nonmonotonic logic comprises two decision-theoretic concepts: probabilities (degrees of belief in planning hypotheses) and utilities (degrees of preference for planning outcomes). We present and discuss examples of the following lessons from this decision-theoretic view of nonmonotonic reasoning: (1) decision theory and nonmonotonic logics are intended to solve different components of the planning problem; (2) when considered in the context of planning under uncertainty, nonmonotonic logics do not retain the domain-independent characteristics of classical (monotonic) logic; and (3) because certain nonmonotonic programming paradigms (for example, frame-based inheritance, nonmonotonic logics) are inherently problem specific, they might be inappropriate for use in solving certain types of planning problems. We discuss how these conclusions affect several current AI research issues.

Hutchins not only presents machine translation research (such as problems of machine translation It is the theories, algorithms, and designs practical versus theoretical, empirical also not clear that the AI philosophy but also the history, goals, assumptions, versus perfectionist, and direct versus of understanding and meaning (p 327) and constraints of each project.

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.

CMU's staff has developed an email for submissions and ways of promoting interface that will be available for Library $85

At their meeting in Milan in 1987, IJCAI Inc. was faced with the issue of multiple submission of papers. IJCAI announces its current policy on this issue through this article. The trustees hope this announcement will encourage a debate from which a consensus can emerge.

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.

Hutchins not only presents machine translation research (such as problems of machine translation It is the theories, algorithms, and designs practical versus theoretical, empirical also not clear that the AI philosophy but also the history, goals, assumptions, versus perfectionist, and direct versus of understanding and meaning (p 327) and constraints of each project.

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.