From: roger schank < To: Jeffrey epstein <jeevacation(agmail.com> Subject: Fwd: chapter 3/questions for chapter 4 Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:17:38 +0000 Attachments: noise_in_engine_scenario_for_York_group.ppt no need to read this but this dimitri writing to the guy who is putting together a book we are doing together; this is his writing and it seems quiet bright and coherent to me; not from a dope roger schank http://www.rogerschank.com/ Begin forwarded message: From: Dimitris Lyras Date: October 21, 2009 9:43:39 AM EDT (CA) To: ' >, >, ' < Subject: RE: chapter 3/questions for chapter 4 I read some of chapter 3 and I have problems with it. It is too imprecise with regard to what is customarily expected of software and what needs to be done and what we are advocating. The clearly missing issue is that software today covers two main areas. Unstructured information like e-mails and on the other end inflexible process control systems like purchasing systems the most extreme of which is a cash register. So we have discussion means that are completely unstructured, and clerical software at the other end. We also have dashboards like Bloomberg somewhere in the middle. Decision making software is far more structured than e-mails and less inflexible than a cash register and rich in relevance linking which Bloomberg and similar dashboards do not achieve since they do not have activity models. I provided a good explanation before about this. The idea of stories to tell you of similar circumstances is right but the examples need to be 10 orders of magnitude more granular and precise with respect to when and why a similar case is useful. I attach 2 stories that explain this; the power-point explains the problem, the SECOND story PASTED BELOW explains the solution. Form this you can gather that case matching is far more granular than we are describing and far more precise. So the readers will quickly realize we are not in the bed time story busines