Talk:Expert system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles about the idea of systems. If you would like to help, you can edit this article or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article is on a subject of high importance within Systems.
Help with this template Comments: system/Comments|action=edit}} edit – system/Comments|action=history}} history – system/Comments|action=watch}} watch – system|action=purge}} refresh It seems that this article is straightforward, whereas this science is not. The history is brief and leads the reader of this article to assume that expert systems are derivatives of computer information technology. The opening sentence of the article states that "An expert system, also known as a knowledge based system, is a computer program..." This is followed in the Overview with a sentence starting, "The most common form of expert system is a computer proram..." Later, under the heading "Expert systems versus problem-solving systems," the second paragraph states, "In the expert system approach all of the problem related expertise is encoded in data structures only; none is in programs." I found several other contradictions and illogical statements, but these should suffice to point out that this article is self-contradictory at many levels. In reality, computers are tools utilizing and applying the philosophies and techniques of this branch of science. For instance, it would be very valuable to point out that a flow chart or flow process chart is an example of an expert sytem that dates back to at least Frank Gilbreth in 1921. This concept is reasonably well grasped by a layperson or undergraduate and provides for the diversaty of complex chaining, if...then statements, and case versus branching logic. In fact, expert systems are based on centuries-old concepts; for instance, Charles Darwin's inference of evolution was based on Aristotle's system of classification. It can be, and often is, argued that all sytems, including natural systems such as an ecosystem, are expert systems as soon as they are altered by any thinking creature or tool user for some purpose. The article actually needs to be summarized with more wiki's not less, because it leaves out more than it includes. It makes no mention of multi-verse or manifold logic structures or or imperative vs. declarative programming or using mneumonics as both the how and the why. This is one of those fields of science where we still can not "program" Ockham's methods of analysis; multiplying unnecessary entities. Also we need to be careful of using acronyms, they are a major source of disambiguation. SME used as Subject Matter Expert is a fairly new incarnation, and is ranked differently in different countries. Even if we consider the english language only, there are differences between EU and the United States. SME would more commonly be known as an acronym standing for the Society of Mechanichal Engineers, or Small (and) Medium (sized) Enterprise both of which are ranked much higher in common usage. Nevertheless, as long as the acronym is defined on first reference as in this article this is a minor issue. --jtp15 (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 Too many wikis? 2 Limitations 3 Cleanup 4 Rearrangement of the article 5 Is there a problem in section 3.3? 6 Responses and offer to help. The introduction needs a rewrite

[edit] Too many wikis?

It might be just me, but I personally don't see the point wikifying every third word, simply because there's a wikipedia entry for it.. Maybe toning this down a bit would make the article a bit more readable as well as ease the search for relevant links... Just a sugestion (I'd do it myself, but I'm still on my wiki training-wheels)

Agreed. Many of the links are not relevant and cause much distraction. Maybe we should use an expert system to write about expert systems. --68.100.104.193 02:36, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that is a perfect idea! But i think that just because the links are not relevant to you does'nt mean that we should lose them because they could be useful/relevant to other people ... Kizza06 21:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Limitations

The article seems rather too upbeat. Something about inherent limitations? Charles Matthews 15:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, the 'Benefits of expert systems' reads like an advertisement. Maybe that should be dumped altogether? (It adds no information.) 131.174.206.242 10:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Strongly agree. It seems quite non-NPOV to me. --81.178.104.80 23:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Under the 'Procedure node interface' header, the article mentions 'cross-referenced applications'. Sounds like the entire text is taken from a textbook on the subject, but I am unsure if it is okay to edit it. --Sarnholm 10:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree! Kizza06 21:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Much of the text of this article comes from United States Patent 4763277, assigned to IBM[1]. It very likely contains proprietary IBM IP, and on that basis probably isn't suitable for an encyclopedia entry.

[edit] Cleanup

I put the cleanup template at the top of this page because it has been two years and there is still egregious and/or poor wiki-linking on this page. See for instance the use of the word analysis or problem in the introduction. These terms are used in, arguably, the most important part of the article but link to non-specific pages. The page on problem is so general as to be meaningless for the purposes of a discussion about expert systems. It would probably be a good idea if someone who has a solid interest in this topic were to go through and do some wide-ranging edits on this page, take out poor wiki-links, and make sure the article hangs together as a whole. Kaimiddleton 02:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with this sentence: 'Other "Wizards" are a sequence of online forms that guide users through a series of choices, such as the ones which manage the installation of new software on computers' <- this "example" is not an instance of online forms (at least in Windows environment an installation wizard and online form are quite different things)! --194.251.240.116 18:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rearrangement of the article

I made a rearragement of the article to a more stadard stucture. I hereby wanted to create space for further development. I think this article can be improved on multiple point:

• More general overview
• A separate history section
• More about study of expert systems
• The topics should be compressed or placed in separate articles
• The article needs references
• And maybe some motre literature

Maybe some further rearragement is necessarily. Good luck - Mdd 12:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a problem in section 3.3?

The text below 3: Expert Systems Topics, 3.2: End user refers to a missing response in the dialog preceding it and also to a 'Why' question. Neither one of these appear in the article at this time. Is this an error? Sorry, I don't have time to investigate or rewrite the article myself.

-Kevinz 20:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responses and offer to help. The introduction needs a rewrite

The definition starts out by describing an expert system as a computer program. Although this is where I think the article should lead the reader; as computer programs are the colloquial usage, as a systems theorist I find that this description jumps ahead of itself. A description of a system and an expert might be a better place to start.

And I agree with Mdd that the article needs to be either cleaned up or re-written. I would be willing to give it a try. I agree with Kizza06 on the wiki links. If I write it we won't need to worry about copyrights or intellectual property. The bulk of the article will come straight from my cerebral cortex; no plagiarism. And I will use appoprate citations as needed. I may need to practice with the sandbox but the template is workable.

Also the History and general theory need added. Everything can be defined as a system. The study of systems provides an understanding of the differences and similarities among all known systems. Specialization in certain types of systems is requisite to being an expert in any field.

Experts systems are systems and thus can not deviate from systems theory which is very expansive. Experts are the boundaries of the system. So, if you add more experts, including the results of the current system, the expertise grows producing a compound system. Wikipedia is an example of an expert system. A search (query, question) is input and the result set is expert knowledge. If you click on a wiki (Hyperlink) you will branch to another topic (drill down), which is an example of functional expertise that is programed into the system. Because the branch is programed by an expert in programing, that functional logic (hperlink) is a subset of the set of experts who are the boundaries. Knowledge based systems are another subset or type of expert system and should NOT be included in an introduction.

To begin I might expand on some of the table of contents and delete others or replace them with wikis.

--jtp15 (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up the intro. The rest is still pretty bad too but someone else will have to address. Lycurgus (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)