in black and white
Main menu
Home About us Share a book
Biology Business Chemistry Computers Culture Economics Fiction Games Guide History Management Mathematical Medicine Mental Fitnes Physics Psychology Scince Sport Technics

Dynamic Memory. A Theory of Reminding and Learning in Computers and People - Schank R.C.

Schank R.C. Dynamic Memory. A Theory of Reminding and Learning in Computers and People - Cambridge University Press, 1982. - 250 p.
Download (direct link): dinamycmemory1982.djvu
Previous << 1 .. 70 71 72 73 74 75 < 76 > 77 78 79 80 81 82 .. 106 >> Next

The reason for all this seems simple enough. An index indicates what is deemed significant for the purpose of the structure that employs that index. The same ought to be true of any human memory indexing scheme, That is, what will serve as a good index is something that is structure-de-pendent. To put this more concretely, we should not expect that what will make a good index in a given TOP, will be of use in a given MOP, or even that the indices of one MOP relate significantly to those of another MOP, An index within a structure should be a function of the most important aspects that helped to define that structure in the first place. Thus, indexing is vitally related to the alteration and creation of structures,
Since indices are related to the significant aspects that define a structure, it follows that we must examine the basis of a structure to consider what its indices might be. With that in mind, letís consider some structures and associated indices.
Indexing in TOPs
In Chapters 4 and 7, we presented some reminding examples that we argued were accounted for by the fact that they utilized the same TOP structure and had an identical set of indices. Letís examine the indices in some of those examples more closely.
Consider again case J, the story about the dieting woman who, after
Dynamic memory
forcing her choice of restaurant because of her diet, then ordered food differently than she had said she would. There, we suggested that the structure that handled these cases was CG;CS(Competing Goal; Compromise Solution) We further suggested that case K, the story about the professor making an appointment with a student, was also handled by CG;CS Further, we claimed that a conversation about the Middle East situation might also use CG;CS We suggested that the indices for these were
Case J Case   Mid-East
diet feeling ďhadĒ Mid-East
restaurant reneged on situation
feeling ďhadĒ reneged on promise promise Arab demands
A TOP has two basic parts, a goal expression and a condition that relates to that goal. It is the role of indices to somehow further specify the significant aspects of the structure they index. Hence, we would expect that both Competing Goal and Compromise Solution ought to be further specified by any indices used within the TOP CG;CS We can look first at the way in which the goal portion of the TOP can be further specified, and used as indices.
Goal specification can be made through noting the general class of the goal, the particular goal, or the object of the goal, defined at different levels of description. So, we can specify a goal by noting that it is of a certain class (satisfaction, achievement, etc), is itself a particular goal (eat, own, go and so on), and is related to a particular goal object, (eat in a restaurant, own a car, or go to New York). By further refining the specification of the goal object, we can define and identify very particular goals (e.g. eat in Leonís, or own a Maserati)
In CG;CS we donít just have a goal, we have a competing goal, and the specification that we desire must be treated as a specification of the goal competition itself. Thus, the next question to ask is what the area of competition is. In case J, the competing goal is restaurant selection. That is, the issue is not the general goal of eating, because that has been agreed upon. They have also agreed at the next level of goal specification, namely, they have agreed to eat in a restaurant.
In a complex indexing scheme, such distinctions can be of crucial importance. We can see that the match between J and   has nothing to do with eating or restaurants,   matched J in the fact that there was a goal object selection problem. That is, there was a problem that existed in terms of the selection of the goal object, restaurant in case J and appointment time in case K. On the other hand, the two episodes in J match each other (from a goal-related point of view) in restaurant selection specification, in that the
Indexing and search
object of the goal in general, restaurant, had already been chosen and the problem was in terms of an evfcn greater specification of this object. In other words, goal refinement and the abstraction of the process of goal refinement are a significant part of the indexing problem.
In general, when a goal is selected, the following specifications are made:
1. goal type (e g satisfaction)
2. goal action (e.g. eat)
1 3.. goal object (e.g. eat lobster)
1 4. goal features (e.g. in a restaurant)
These four aspects can be further specified by a variety of particulars on the general type (e.g., a Maine lobster, or a particular restaurant),
In goal competition, the competition can manifest itself in a number of ways. It can involve any of the four aspects listed above, at varying levels of specification. Thus, two people can compete with respect to the activity to ] be pursued, where to pursue it, how much to spend, where to sit, and so on. In general, the competition can revolve around the selection of a particular choice to be agreed upon, or the mutual decision to go after identical objects in a goal that presumes that sharing is infeasible or undesired.
Previous << 1 .. 70 71 72 73 74 75 < 76 > 77 78 79 80 81 82 .. 106 >> Next