Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!mcvax!ukc!etive!aiva!jeff From: jeff@aiva.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Bad AI: A Clarification Message-ID: <485@aiva.ed.ac.uk> Date: 6 Jul 88 15:00:57 GMT References: <1242@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <1299@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <451@aiva.ed.ac.uk> <1337@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> Reply-To: jeff@uk.ac.ed.aiva (Jeff Dalton) Organization: Dept. of AI, Univ. of Edinburgh, UK Lines: 69 In article <1337@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes: I don't have time to respond to all of your articles that respond to mine, but will try to say something. I suggested that you give specific criticism of specific research, but you have declined to do so. That's unfortunate, because as it is most people are just going to ignore you, having heard such unsupported attacks before. >In article <451@aiva.ed.ac.uk> jeff@uk.ac.ed.aiva (Jeff Dalton) writes: >>>It would be nice if they followed good software engineering practices and >>>structured development methods as well. >>Are you trying to see how many insults can fit into one paragraph? >No. OK, I'll accept that. But if so, you failed to make your intention clear. And of course it *would* be nice if they, etc., but do you know "they" don't. My experience is that appropriate software engineering practices are followed in many cases. That doesn't mean they all use JSP (or eqivalent), but then it's not always appropriate to do so. >No-one in UK HCI research, as far as I know, objects to the criticism >that research methodologies are useless until they are integrated >with existing system development approaches. That no one objects is not a valid argument. They might all be wrong. >On software engineering too, HCI will have to deliver its >goods according to established practices. To achieve this, some HCI >research must be done in Computer Science departments in collaboration >with industry. There is no other way of finishing off the research >properly. There is a difference between research and delivering goods that can be used by industry. It is not the case that all research must be delivered in finished form to industry. Of course, the needs of industry, including their desire to follow established practices, are important when research will be so delivered, but in other cases such needs are not so significant. We must also consider that the results of research are not always embodied in software. >You've either missed or forgotten a series of postings over the last >two years about this problem in AI. Or perhaps I don't agree with those postings, or perhaps I don't agree with your view of the actual state of affairs. >Project managers want to manage IKBS projects like existing projects. Of course, they do: that's what they know. You've yet to give any evidence that they're right and have nothing to learn. >You must also not be talking to the same UK software houses as I am, as >(parts of) UK industry feel that big IKBS projects are a recipe for >burnt fingers, unless they can be managed like any other software project. Big IKBS projects are risky regardless of how they're managed. Part of the problem is that AI research hasn't advanced far enough: it's not just a question of applying some software engineering; and so the difficulties with big IKBS projects are not necessarily evidence that they must be managed like any other software project. But this is all beside the point -- industrial IKBS projects and AI research are not the same thing.