Distributed vs. Localist Representations

[rstark@aipna.edinburgh.ac.uk]

One aspect of this issue which seems implicit in much of this discussion
is the notion that distributed representation can be considered
a *relative* property.  Thus the "room schema" network is "distributed"
relative to rooms, but "localist" relative to ovens.  Likewise,
the Jets and Sharks model, which is considered to be strictly localist
in the sense that each unit explictly represents a single concept
(eg. "is-in-thirties"), does produce representations that
are distributed relative to individual gang members.  Andy Clark
notes this in Microcognition.  

Does this seem correct?  Is anyone uncomfortable with calling the
Jets and Sharks a "distributed" model since each individual is
represented by a pattern over the units (one unit active in each
competition network), even though each unit can be clearly labelled in
a localist fashion?

Note that his notion of relativity in distributed
representation is (I believe) distinct from its continuous aspects
(seen in references to "paritally-" or "semi-" distributed representations),
which may be quantifiable using eg. Tim Van Gelder's proposal
of degree of superimposition.

-Randall Stark

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Randall Stark TEL: (+44)-31-650-2725       | Dept of Artifical Intelligence
JANET: rstark at uk.ac.ed.aipna               | 80, South Bridge
ARPA: rstark%uk.ac.ed.aipna at nsfnet-relay   | University of Edinburgh
UUCP: ...!uunet!mcsun!ukc!aipna!rstark     | Edinburgh, EH1 1HN, UK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------