On 3/9/07, Chuck Esterbrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/6/07, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A more detailed discussion is in
> http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.WhatAIShouldBe.pdf
One can usually infer the approximate date of such a paper from the
references, but not having a date still seems odd especially
considering that these papers are usually formalized in their format
and structure (Abstract, Introduction, ..., Conclusions, Reference).
Maybe I'm just sensitive to this because in every business I've worked
at, we have put dates on _everything_ including internal documents.
So here's my question: Why are papers like this never dated? It isn't
just Pei's paper. It seems to be all the papers I read.
Usually the papers are dated in the publication (journal, proceedings,
etc.), but not in papers individually. For example, this paper is
listed and cited as in "The AAAI Spring Symposium on Cognitive Science
Principles Meet AI-Hard Problems, 97-102, Stanford, California, March
2006", which is the publication date, not the written date (which
"officially" doesn't count ).
Pei
Just curious,
-Chuck
-----
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
-----
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
