Two Theses of Knowledge Representation: review

From: Tyler (trobison_at_cs.washington.edu)
Date: Wed Oct 22 2003 - 09:38:36 PDT

  • Next message: Masaharu Kobashi: "Review of Paper 2"

    Two Theses of Knowledge Representation
    Jon Doyle & Ramesh S Patil

            This paper attacks the conclusions of Levesque and Brachman, who
    propose a knowledge representation system that accepts some restrictions
    in order to avoid undesirable response times.

            An idea at the heart of this paper is the balance between
    expressiveness and complexity. The Levesque and Brachman paper holds that
    restricting certain aspects of
    expression is a legitimate way to efficiency. This paper maintains that
    restricting expression makes the overall system less useful, and is not
    worth the efficiency gained. They argue that the inefficient constructs
    can be used lightly, when it is worth the cost, and that omitting them
    altogether is a heavy-handed remedy.

            A second idea of importance are the consequences of these opposing
    views: if Levesque and Brachman are correct, then there are no
    general-purpose knowledge representation systems. If Doyle and Patil are
    correct, then we can construct general-purpose knowledge representation
    systems. We would of course like to be able to construct a general system
    that could be used for any application, so this is a relevant concept.

            The most significant flaw in my mind is not necessarily in the
    conclusions drawn, nor in the argument itself, but rather in the
    presentation. A little conciseness and simplification would have gone a
    long way here, as much of the paper is overly wordy, while at the same
    time actually conveying little information. At times several pages can be
    read without the reader having a sense of progress in terms of the
    argument; at least that was my experience.

            Since the ideas covered in these two papers are significantly
    important (is it possible to construct a general-purpose knowledge
    representation system?), it would be nice to see a conclusion drawn by
    some objective third-party, taking into account arguments and examples by
    both sides.


  • Next message: Masaharu Kobashi: "Review of Paper 2"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Wed Oct 22 2003 - 09:38:48 PDT