[om-list] Re: Method vs. Model, etc.

[Tom and other Packers]

OM and Mark:

    Personally, I think a one unified, generalised method of inference is
both possible and desirable, for the same reason that one model is.  I'll be
writing more about this later.

tomp

----- Original Message -----
From: "Luke Call" <lacall at onemodel.org>
To: "Mark Butler" <butlerm at middle.net>
Cc: "Tom and other Packers" <TomP at Burgoyne.Com>; "One Model List"
<om-list at onemodel.org>
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 5:54 AM
Subject: Re: [om-list] Re: Method vs. Model, etc.


Good stuff Mark. (I'm trying to catch up on the email etc.)

I know I want to first try putting in OM the stuff I now have in various
text files, collapsible outlines, and any information from my filing
cabinet that I'd want saved in case of a fire, but that's just me. Then
evaluate bulk add methods etc.

Mark Butler wrote:

> Tom and other Packers wrote:
>>     For me, there are two main objectives to writing good AI: (1) the
model,
>> (2) the method, i.e. the (1) statics and (2) dynamics of the language,
i.e.
>> (1) the data structure, and (2) the algorithm operating on that data; and
>> it's almost arbitrary which one you start your work on, since they are
both
>> so interdependent.  I think Lee wants to see more of the algorithm part.
> While there can be many methods, there can only be One Model in any sort
of
> unified system because every method has to operate on a form of data that
> corresponds to a common model to avoid the NxN format conversion problem.
>
> ....