On 3/13/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hmmm, the dictionary definition of semantic is "of, pertaining to, or arising from the different meanings of words or other symbols" -- which I take to be the *meaning* or *communication* level which certainly can be different from the *working* level. How does what you're saying differ from what I'm saying?
Rather than get into dictionaries, you know the way in SQL you can say SELECT blah FROM whatever, and the database engine will automatically use an index if there's one available _while leaving your code no different than if it had been using a linear search_? That's what I mean. Uh huh. So your vision processing "code" is something like a description
which then compiles down to the most efficient implementation.
No, just an adequately efficient implementation :) I think that if I convince someone/everybody else to throw a standard
communication layer on top of *their* hand-tweaked internal representation, I'll do just fine, thank you very much.
I hope you're right! Which is what I'm working towards. But how are *you* progressing on
converging on a canonical format? Do you believe that logical representation is sufficient for describing vision processing well enough that a compiler can then create functioning vision code?
Yes. As for progress, I think the outline ideas are solid enough that I'm ready to start taking a shot at detailed design once I can get enough money together that I don't have to worry about that end of things for a few years (the perennial story of modern AGI research :P) ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
