Talk:Forward chaining
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, which aims to create a comprehensive computer science reference for Wikipedia. Visit the project page for more information and to join in on related discussions. |
| Stub | rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale |
| Mid | rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
I edited the example in the page two one that I see as better because:
1) both rule are required to come to a conclusion, and so 'inference' is truly required
2) it seems less open-ended/ambiguous to ask 'what color is fritz' than 'what is fritz'
3) these rules seem less contrived to me
--CH
Further edits (15th May 2006):
I added a similarly long explanation of the workings as there is for Backwards chaining.
I made only the first reference to 'frog' a wiki-word, but am still unsure whether even this is neccesary - who doesn't know what a frog is, and even then, how would that relevant to the example; Fritz might as well be a jabberwocky! (or jubjub bird etc.)
It would also be nice to expand on the 'dynamic' point, as I'm not sure it is that clear.
Finally, Both backwards *AND* Forwards chaining pages note that these methods are often used in expert systems; is this a contradiction?
--CH
I made the details of the same as for backward chaining with the same list of rules so it contrasts the inference algorithms better. I only have an issue with the analogy used with "top-down" and "bottom-up" -- IMO data driven is bottom up (because you start with the nitty-gritty detail and end at an abstraction) and goal driven is top-down (begin with abstraction and work your way to the detail.) Think of language parsers as special examples of it: if you work the grammar rules from sentence down to parts and try to match words, you do top-down parsing, goal-driven. If you start with the words finding rules which match the sequence you see, then you do bottom-up parsing, data driven. So I removed the bottom-up / top-down language altogether. Gschadow 16:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
The articles are about computer science terms. If anything, they should be merged to Expert system. WLU 22:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
