| Title: | Europe-Swas-Artificial-Intelligence |
| Moderator: | HERON::BUCHANAN |
| Created: | Fri Jun 03 1988 |
| Last Modified: | Thu Aug 04 1994 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 442 |
| Total number of notes: | 1429 |
Regarding the AI Training Program in January ....
At the AI Forum, I mentioned that we were looking for a good Tool
to offer as a training option to OPS 5. (Originally, the option was
going to be EPITOOL ... ).
I've looked into some other tools and found that the cost of offering
them is high. NEXPERT is an exception because the course on
the tool itself, as well as the Prototyping course, both exist and the
instructor(s) is a DEC employee.
The question is this:
Is it best to offer OPS 5 and NEXPERT .... or .... is wiser to offer
only OPS 5 ?
In other words, is NEXPERT better than no option at all ?
Tell me what you think.
- Malcolm
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 247.1 | my vote | ACTRIX::dehartog | moduladaplisprologopsimulalgol | Thu Nov 08 1990 17:25 | 7 |
How do you measure "having an option?" IMHO Having no option is better than Nexpert. Nexpert means: C is a prerequisite Hans. | |||||
| 247.2 | KETJE::VANDEVYVER | Luc Van de Vyver 856-7577 | Fri Nov 09 1990 14:52 | 12 | |
I second Hans (.1) opinion. The purpose is to use a tool to study and prototype expert systems, but at the same time one learns a tool. This means the learning cycle of the tool must be as short as possible, and must require as less pre-requisites as possible (e.g. C). It puzzles me however, that we have problems replacing EPITOOL for training and pre-sales purposes. According to the partylines there shouldn't be a problem... Luc | |||||