COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	Preceding subsections have discussed many criteria for the system.
C00009 ENDMK
C⊗;
Preceding subsections have discussed many criteria for the system.
Moore and Newell have published some
reasonable design issues for any proposed understanding system, and we shall now
see how our system answers their questions$$
Each point of the taxonomy which they
provide before these questions is covered by the AM  system.$.
Recall that a BEING is the name of the kind of knowledge module representing
one concept, the data structure corresponding to a bunch of facets about that
concept. 

<< Edit this Moore&Newell summary: it's not clear what's going on at all!!>

.BEGIN W(6) 


Representation: Families of BEINGs, simple situation/rules, opaque functions.
	Scope: Each family of BEINGs characterizes one type of knowledge. 
			Each BEING represents one very specialized expert.
			The opaque functions can represent intuition and the real world.
	Grain: Partial knowledge about a topic X is naturally expressed as an incomplete BEING X.
	Multiple representations: Each differently-named part has its own format, so, e.g.,
		examples of an operation can be stored as i/o pairs, the intuition points to an
		opaque function, the recognition section is sit/action productions, the
		algorithms part is a quasi-executable partially-ordered list of things to try.
Action: Most knowledge is stored in BEING-parts in a nearly-executable way; the remainder is
	stored so that the "active" segment can easily use it as it runs.  The place that
	a piece of information is stored is carefully chosen so that it will be evoked
	in almost all the situations in which it is relevant.  The only real action in the
	system is the selective completion of BEINGs parts (occasionally creating a new BEING).
Assimilation: There is no sharp distinction between the internal knowledge and the
	task; the task is really nothing more than to extend the given knowledge while
	maintaining interest and asethetic worth.  The only external entities are the
	user and the simulated physical world. Contact with the first is through a
	simpleminded translation scheme, with the latter through evaluation of opaque
	functions on observable data and examination of the results.
Accomodation: translation of alien messages; inference from (simulated) real-world examples data.
Directionality: The Environment gathers up the relevant knowledge at each step to fill
	in the currently worked-on part of the current BEING, simply by asking that part
	(its archetypical representative), that BEING, and its Tied BEINGs what to do.
	Keep-progressing: at each stage, there will be hundreds or thousands of unfilled-in
		parts, and the system simply chooses the most interesting one to work on.
Efficiency: 
	Interpreter: Will the contents of BEING's parts be compilable, or must they remain
		completely inspectable? One alternative is to provide two versions, one
		fast one for executing and one transparent one for examining. 
		Also provide access to a compiler, to recompile any changed (or new) part.
	Immediacy: There need not be close, rapidifire comunication with a human,
		but whenever communicating with him, time ⊗4will⊗* be important; thus the
		only requirement on speed is placed upon the translation modules, and
		they are fairly simple (due to the clean nature of the mathematical domain).
	Formality: There is a probabilistic belief rating for everything, and a descriptive
		"Justifications" component for all BEINGs for which it is meaningful.
		There are experts who know about Bugs, Debugging, Contradiction, etc.
		Frame problem: when the world changes, make no effort to update everything.
			Whenever a contradiction is encountered, study its origins and
			recompute belief values until it goes away.
Depth of Understanding:  Each BEING is an expert, one of whose duties is to announce his
	own relevance whenever he recognizes it. The specific desire will generally
	indicate which part of the relevant BEING is the one to examine. In case this loses,
	each BEING has a part which (on the basis of how it failed) points to alternatives.
	Access to all implications: The intuitive functions must simulate this ability,
		since they are to be analogic. The BEINGs certainly don't have such access.

.END