Course talk:CPSC522/Cognitive Robotics

I think the page should be written in form of a paper review/summery. It would be a good idea to add a discussion/evaluation section to the page. Besides, the boundary between two papers is not obvious (I suppose it only consists of one paper). Besides, you can add a section explaining your opinion about the two papers and their contributions. Adding some figures/practical examples would be helpful as well. Besides, It's a little bit short. There's still plenty room to expand the materials.

I a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means "strongly disagree" and 5 means "strongly agree" please rate and comment on the following:

• The topic is relevant for the course. 5
• The writing is clear and the English is good. 5
• The page is written at an appropriate level for CPSC 522 students (where the students have diverse backgrounds). 5
• The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand. 4
• The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 5
• There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. 3
• There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. n/a
• It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic). 3
• It is correct. 5
• It was neither too short nor too long for the topic. 5
• It was an appropriate unit for a page (it shouldn't be split into different topics or merged with another page). 4
• It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki. 4
• The references and links to external pages are well chosen. 4
• I would recommend this page to someone who wanted to find out about the topic. 4
• This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate. 4

Based on what is covered in the page: If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it 18.

On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means "strongly disagree" and 5 means "strongly agree" please rate and comment on the following:

   The topic is relevant for the course. 5
   The writing is clear and the English is good. 4
   The page is written at an appropriate level for CPSC 522 students (where the students have diverse backgrounds). 5
   The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand. 5
   The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 5
   There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. 5
   There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. 5
   It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic). 4
   It is correct. 5
   It was neither too short nor too long for the topic. 1
   It was an appropriate unit for a page (it shouldn't be split into different topics or merged with another page). 5
   It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki. 3
   The references and links to external pages are well chosen. 5
   I would recommend this page to someone who wanted to find out about the topic. 3
   This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate. 5

If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 12 (mostly because it's missing one paper)

• This page covers an interesting topic but what's the key take-away? What is the conclusion? What evaluation has been done?
• I believe that we're expected to discuss two papers, not just one, and how one builds on the other.
• Please don't forget to fill in the Builds On and Related Pages sections as well.
• Maybe "Situation Calculus" would be a more appropriate title...?