Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:21:18.773Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Criteria for Choosing Representation Languages and Control Regimes for Expert Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

Han Reichgelt  and
Frank van Harmelen
Han Reichgelt
Affiliation:
Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Frank van Harmelen
Affiliation:
Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Shells and high-level programming language environments suffer from a number of shortcomings as knowledge engineering tools. We conclude that a variety of knowledge representation formalisms and a variety of controls regimes are needed. In addition guidelines should be provided about when to choose which knowledge representation formalism and which control regime. The guidelines should be based on properties of the task and the domain of the expert system. In order to arrive at these guidelines we first critically review some of the classifications of expert systems in the literature. We then give our own list of criteria. We test this list applying our criteria to a number of existing expert systems. As a caveat, we have not yet made a systematic attempt at correlating the criteria and different knowledge representations formalisms and control regimes, although we make some preliminary remarks throughout the paper.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 1 , Issue 4 , December 1984 , pp. 2 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1]Alvey, P. (1983). Problems of designing a medical expert system. Expert Systems 83, pp.20–42.Google Scholar
[2]Beck, E., Francis, J. & Souhami, R. (1983) Tutorials in differential diagnosis (2nd edition) London: Pitman.Google Scholar
[3]Bennett, J. (1985) Roget: A knowledge-based consultant for acquiring the conceptual structure of an expert system. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 1, 19–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Brachman, R. (1979) On the epistemological status of semantic networks. In Finaler, N. (ed.) Associative networks: representation and use of knowledge by computer. New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
[5]Breuker, J. & Wielinga, B. (1985) Use of models in the interpretation of verbal data. University of Amsterdam. To appear in: Kidd, A. (ed) Knowledge elicitation for expert systems: A practical handbook. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
[6]Breuker, J. & Wielinga, B. (1985) KADS: Structured Knowledge Acquisition for Expert Systems. VF-Memo 40, University of AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
[7]Brown, D., Chandrasekaran, B., Expert Systems for a class of mechanical design activity Proceedings of IFIP Working Group 5.2 Working Conference on Knowledge Engineering in Computer Aided Design, Budapest, Hungary, 09 '84.Google Scholar
[8]Brown, D., Chandrasekaran, B., Knowledge and control for design problem solving. Technical report from the Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Information Science, Laboratory for AI Research, 1985.Google Scholar
[9]Chandrasekaran, B. (1983) Towards a taxonomy of problem-solving types. AI Magazine, 4, 9–17.Google Scholar
[10]Chandrasekaran, B. (1985) Generic tasks in expert system design and their role in explanation of problem solving. Paper presented to the NAS/ONR Workshop on AI and distributed problem solving.Google Scholar
[11]Chandrasekaran, B., (1985) Expert Systems: Matching Techniques to Tasks, in: Artificial Intelligence Applications for Business, Reitman, W. (ed), Ablex Corp.Google Scholar
[12]Stiklen, J., Chandrasekaran, B., Josephson, J. (1985) Control Issues in Classificatory Diagnosis Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI '85, Los Angeles, pp. 300–306.Google Scholar
[13]Clancey, W. (1984) Classification problem solving. AAAI-84, 49–55.Google Scholar
[14]Clancey, W. (1985) Heuristic Classification. Stanford University Knowledge Systems Labaoratory, Technical report KSL-85–5.Google Scholar
[15]Hart, P. (1982) direction for AI in the eighties. SIGART Newsletter, 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]Hayes-Roth, F., Waterman, D. & Lenat, D. (eds.) (1983). Building expert systems. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
[17]Jackson, P. (1985) reasoning about belief in the context of advice-giving systems. In Bramer, M. (ed.) Research and development in expert systems, pp 73–83, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
[18]Stefik, M., Aikins, J., Balzer, R., Benoit, J., Birnbaum, L., Hayes-Roth, F., & Sacerdoti, E. (1982) The organization of expert systems: A tutorial. Artificial Intelligence, 18, 135–172. Also in F. Hayes-Roth, D. Waterman & D. Lenat (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18b]Erman, L. and Lesser, V. (1980) The Hearsay-II Speech Understanding System: A tutorial. In: Trends in speech recognition. Wayne and Lea (eds.)Google Scholar
[19]Fagan, L.M., Kunz, J.C., Feigenbaum, E.A. and Osborn, J. (1979) Representation of dynamic clinical knowledge: Measurement interpretation in the intensive care unit. Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI '79, pp. 260–262.Google Scholar
[20]Fagan, L. (1980) VM, Representing time-dependent relations in a medical setting. Ph.D. Diss. Computer Science Department, Stanford University.Google Scholar
[21]Jackson, P. (1986) Introduction to expert systems. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
[22]McDermott, J. (1982) R1: A rule-based configurer of computer systems. Artificial Intelligence, 19, 39–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[23]Miller, P. (1983) Medical plan analysis: The attending system. IJCAI-83, 239–41.Google Scholar
[24]Pople, H. (1977) The formation of composite hypotheses in diagnostic problem-solving: An exercise in synthetic reasoning. IJCAI–77, 1030–37.Google Scholar
[25]Shortliffe, E. (1976) Computer-based medical consultation: MYCIN. New York: American Elsevier.Google Scholar
[26]Shortliffe, E. (1985) Update on ONCOCIN, A chemotherapy advisor for clinical oncology. Medical InformaticsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
[27]Bobrow, D. & Stefik, M. (1983) The LOOPS manual, Xerox.Google Scholar
[28] Intellicorp, (1984) The Knowledge Engineering Environment.Google Scholar
[29]Richer, M., Five Commercial Expert System Tools: An Evaluation The Artifical Intelligence Report, Vol. 2, No. 8, 08 1985.Google Scholar
[30]Williams, C. (1983) ART, the advanced reasoning tool, conceptual overview. Inference Corporation.Google Scholar
[31]de Kleer, J., Doyle, J., Steele, G. Jr, & Sussman, G. (1977) AMORD: Explicit control of reasoning. SIGART Newsletter. 64, 116–25.Google Scholar
[32]de Kleer, J. (1986) An assumption-based TMS. Artificial Intelligence, 28, 127–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[33]Doyle, J. (1979) A truth-maintenance system. Artificial Intelligence, 12, 231–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[34]Reichgelt, H. (1985) Reference and quantification in the cognitive view of language. PhD Thesis. University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
[35]Fox, J., (1980) Alternatives to Bayes? A quantitative comparison with rule-based diagnostic inference. Methods of Information in Medicine, Vol. 19, pp. 210–215.Google Scholar
[36]Mamdani, E.H., Gaines, B.R. (eds.), Fuzzy Reasoning and its Applications Academic Press, 1981.Google Scholar
[37]Negoita, C. (1985) Expert systems and fuzzy systems. Menlo Park, Cal.: Benjamin/Cummings.Google Scholar
[38]Parker, R. (1985) The treatment of uncertainty in expert systems. Technical Report 21, Internal project paper for a flexible toolkit for building expert systems.Google Scholar
[39]Whalen, Th., Decision making Under Uncertainty with Various Assumptions about Available Information. IEEE Transaction on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol. SMC-14, No. 6. Nov/Dec 1984, pp. 888–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[40]Whalen, Th, Schot, B., (1985) Alternative Logics for approximate reasoning in expert systems: a comparative study. International Journal of Man-Machine studies. Vol. 22, (1985), pp. 327–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[41]Zadeh, L. (1979) A theory of approximate reasoning. In Hayes, J., Michie, D. & Mikulich, L. (eds) Machine Intelligence 9. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
[42]Haack, S. (1974) Deviant logic: Some philosophical issues. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
[43]Hughes, G. & Cresswell, M. (1968) An introduction to modal logic. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
[44]Mates, B. (1972) Elementary logic (2nd edition) Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
[45]Moore, R. (1985) A formal theory of knowledge and action. In Hobbs, J. & Moore, R. (eds) Formal theories of the commonsense world. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.Google Scholar
[46]Rescher, N. & Urquhart, A. (1971) Temporal logic. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[47]Turner, R. (1984) Logics for artificial intelligence. Chichester: Horwood.Google Scholar
[48]van Benthem, J. (1982) The Logic of time. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
[49]van Dalen, D. (1983) Logic and struture (2nd edition) Berlin: Springer-VerlagCrossRefGoogle Scholar
[50]Davis, R. & Buchanan, B.. (1977) Meta-level Knowledge: Overview and applications. IJCAI-77, 920–27.Google Scholar
[51]van Harmelen, F. (1986) Improving the efficiency of meta-level reasoning. Discussion Paper, Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar