Exploiting Functional Vocabularies to Learn Structural Descriptions
In the idea paper entitled “Learning Meaning,” Minsky  stresses the importance of maintaining different representations of knowledge, each suited to different tasks. For example, a system designed to recognize examples of cups on a table would do well to represent its knowledge as descriptions of observable features and structures. In contrast, a planning system employing cups to achieve goals would require a representation describing the purpose and function of cups. When we turn from the issue of employing a description of a cup to the task of learning such a description, it is not immediately obvious what vocabulary should be used. One approach might be to choose the vocabulary appropriate for the performance task (i.e., structural descriptions for recognition, functional descriptions for planning, etc.). This approach has been pursued, e.g., by Winston , Buchanan & Mitchell , Quinlan , and Minton . In the case of Winston’s ARCH learner and Buchanan & Mitchell’s Meta-DENDRAL system, this approach worked well because good structural vocabularies were available. However, Quinlan and Minton confronted much more difficult problems in constructing structural vocabularies that concisely captured the desired game-playing concepts. Quinlan, for example, spent two man months developing the vocabulary for the concept of “lost-in-3-ply.”
KeywordsStructural Description Generalization Rule Functional Description Concept Description Board Position
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.