Explanations from knowledge-based systems and cooperative problem solving: an empirical study

2001 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
SHIRLEY GREGOR
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Empirical Study ◽  
Knowledge Based Systems ◽  
Cooperative Problem Solving ◽  
Knowledge Based

Task Ontology-Based Human-Computer Interaction

2009 ◽  
pp. 950-960
Author(s):  
Kazuhisa Seta
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Real World ◽  
Practical Knowledge ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Knowledge Based Systems ◽  
Engineering Research ◽  
Knowledge Based ◽  
Task Ontology ◽  
Problem Solving Task

In ontological engineering research field, the concept of “task ontology” is well-known as a useful technology to systemize and accumulate the knowledge to perform problem-solving tasks (e.g., diagnosis, design, scheduling, and so on). A task ontology refers to a system of a vocabulary/ concepts used as building blocks to perform a problem-solving task in a machine readable manner, so that the system and humans can collaboratively solve a problem based on it. The concept of task ontology was proposed by Mizoguchi (Mizoguchi, Tijerino, & Ikeda, 1992, 1995) and its validity is substantiated by development of many practical knowledge-based systems (Hori & Yoshida, 1998; Ikeda, Seta, & Mizoguchi, 1997; Izumi &Yamaguchi, 2002; Schreiber et al., 2000; Seta, Ikeda, Kakusho, & Mizoguchi, 1997). He stated: …task ontology characterizes the computational architecture of a knowledge-based system which performs a task. The idea of task ontology which serves as a system of the vocabulary/concepts used as building blocks for knowledge-based systems might provide an effective methodology and vocabulary for both analyzing and synthesizing knowledge-based systems. It is useful for describing inherent problem-solving structure of the existing tasks domain-independently. It is obtained by analyzing task structures of real world problem. ... The ultimate goal of task ontology research is to provide a theory of all the vocabulary/concepts necessary for building a model of human problem solving processes. (Mizoguchi, 2003) We can also recognize task ontology as a static user model (Seta et al., 1997), which captures the meaning of problem-solving processes, that is, the input/output relation of each activity in a problem-solving task and its effects on the real world as well as on the humans’ mind.

Task Ontology-Based Human-Computer Interaction

2006 ◽  
pp. 588-596
Author(s):  
Kazuhisa Seta
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Real World ◽  
Practical Knowledge ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Knowledge Based Systems ◽  
Engineering Research ◽  
Knowledge Based ◽  
Task Ontology ◽  
Problem Solving Task

In ontological engineering research field, the concept of “task ontology” is well-known as a useful technology to systemize and accumulate the knowledge to perform problem-solving tasks (e.g., diagnosis, design, scheduling, and so on). A task ontology refers to a system of a vocabulary/concepts used as building blocks to perform a problem-solving task in a machine readable manner, so that the system and humans can collaboratively solve a problem based on it. The concept of task ontology was proposed by Mizoguchi (Mizoguchi, Tijerino, & Ikeda, 1992, 1995) and its validity is substantiated by development of many practical knowledge-based systems (Hori & Yoshida, 1998; Ikeda, Seta, & Mizoguchi, 1997; Izumi &Yamaguchi, 2002; Schreiber et al., 2000; Seta, Ikeda, Kakusho, & Mizoguchi, 1997). He stated: …task ontology characterizes the computational architecture of a knowledge-based system which performs a task. The idea of task ontology which serves as a system of the vocabulary/concepts used as building blocks for knowledge-based systems might provide an effective methodology and vocabulary for both analyzing and synthesizing knowledge-based systems. It is useful for describing inherent problem-solving structure of the existing tasks domain-independently. It is obtained by analyzing task structures of real world problem. ... The ultimate goal of task ontology research is to provide a theory of all the vocabulary/concepts necessary for building a model of human problem solving processes. (Mizoguchi, 2003) We can also recognize task ontology as a static user model (Seta et al., 1997), which captures the meaning of problem-solving processes, that is, the input/output relation of each activity in a problem-solving task and its effects on the real world as well as on the humans’ mind.

Reconstructing Medical Problem Solving Competence: MACCORD

1993 ◽  
Vol 32 (04) ◽  
pp. 326-338
Author(s):  
B. Petkoff ◽  
H. Mannebach ◽  
S. Kirkby ◽  
D. Kraus
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Clinical Medicine ◽  
Medical Knowledge ◽  
Medical Problem ◽  
Knowledge Based Systems ◽  
Levels Of Abstraction ◽  
Knowledge Based ◽  
Methodological Principles ◽  
Problem Solving Behavior ◽  
Medical Reasoning

AbstractThe building of medical knowledge-based systems involves the reconstruction of methodological principles and structures within the various subdomains of medicine. ACCORD is a general methodology of knowledge-based systems, and MACCORD its application to medicine. MACCORD represents the problem solving behavior of the medical expert in terms of various types of medical reasoning and at various levels of abstraction. With MACCORD the epistemic and cognitive processes in clinical medicine can be described in formal terminology, covering the entire diversity of medical reasoning. MACCORD is close enough to formalization to make a significant contribution to the fields of medical knowledge acquisition, medical didactics and the analysis and application of medical problem solving methods.

Altering the SightPlan knowledge-based systems

1992 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. D. Tommelein ◽  
B. Hayes-Roth ◽  
R. E. Levitt
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Knowledge Bases ◽  
Knowledge Based Systems ◽  
Knowledge Domain ◽  
Task Knowledge ◽  
Knowledge Based ◽  
Site Layout ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Control Knowledge ◽  
Construction Site Layout

SightPlan refers to several knowledge-based systems that address construction site layout. Five different versions were implemented and their components of expertise are described here. These systems are alterations of one another, differing either in the problems they solve, the problem-solving methods they apply, or the tasks they address. Because they share either control knowledge, domain concepts, or heuristics, and such knowledge is implemented in well-defined modular knowledge bases, these systems could easily re-use parts of one another. Experiments like those presented here may clarify the role played by different types of knowledge during problem solving, enabling researchers to gain a broader understanding of the generality of the domain and task knowledge that is embedded in KBSs and of the power of their systems.

Explaining reasoning: an overview of explanation in knowledge-based systems

1991 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard W. Southwick
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Annotated Bibliography ◽  
User Requirements ◽  
Knowledge Based Systems ◽  
Reasoning Process ◽  
Knowledge Based ◽  
Problem Solving Process ◽  
System Context

AbstractThere seems to be general agreement amongst those involved in KBS research that in order to be useful, a system must be able to explain its reasoning to a user. This paper reviews the development of explanation facilities in knowledge-based systems. It differentiates between explanation as a problem-solving process, and that which explains a reasoning process. This review concentrates on the latter, identifying and giving examples of three categories of reasoning explanation.We then look at user requirements for explanation. What makes an explanation useful depends on the expectations of a user, which in turn depends on such issues as user background and system context. Several techniques are examined that have been applied to the problem of producing explanations that are appropriately structured and conveyed.Finally, we discuss some of the work that has been done in describing theories of human discourse and explanation, and some issues that will become increasingly important for future explanation systems.An extensive annotated bibliography is provided.

scholarly journals A comparison of languages which operationalize and formalize KADS models of expertise

1994 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 105-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dieter Fensel ◽  
Frank van Harmelen
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Rapid Prototyping ◽  
Conceptual Model ◽  
Model Evaluation ◽  
Conceptual Models ◽  
Knowledge Engineering ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Knowledge Based Systems ◽  
Research Issues ◽  
Knowledge Based

AbstractIn the field of knowledge engineering, dissatisfaction with therapid-prototypingapproach has led to a number of more principled methodologies for the contruction of knowledge-based systems. Instead of immediately implementing the gathered and interpreted knowledge in a given implementation formalism according to the rapid-prototyping approach, many such methodologies centre around the notion of a conceptual model: an abstract, implementation independent description of the relevant problem solving expertise. A conceptual model should describe the task which is solved by the system and the knowledge which is required by it. Although such conceptual models more precisely, and operationally as a means for model evaluation. In this paper, we study a number of such formal and operational languages for specifying conceptual models. To enable a meaningful comparison of such languages, we focus on languages which are all aimed at the same underlying conceptual model, namely that from the KADS method for building KBS. We describe eight formal languages for KADS models of expertise, and compare these languages with respect to their modelling primitives, their semantics, their implementations and their applications, Future research issues in the area of formal and operational specification languages for KBS are identified as the result of studying these languages. The paper also contains an extensive bibliography of research in this area.

scholarly journals ISSUES WITH META-KNOWLEDGE

2000 ◽  
Vol 10 (04) ◽  
pp. 549-555 ◽  
Author(s):  
TIM MENZIES ◽  
KLAUS-DIETER ALTHOFF ◽  
YANNIS KALFOGLOU ◽  
ENRICO MOTTA
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Knowledge Engineering ◽  
Knowledge Based Systems ◽  
Reusable Components ◽  
Knowledge Based ◽  
Lively Debate

At the SEKE'99 conference, knowledge engineering researchers held a panel on the merits of meta-knowledge (i.e. problem solving methods and ontologies) for the development of knowledge-based systems. The original panel was framed as a debate on the merits of meta-knowledge for knowledge maintenance [21]. However, the debate quickly expanded. In the end, we were really discussing the merits of different technologies for the specification of reusable components for KBS. In this brief article we record some of the lively debate from that panel and the email exchanges it generated.

TFL: an algebraic language to specify the dynamic behaviour of knowledge-based systems

1996 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 253-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Pierret-Golbreich ◽  
Xavier Talon
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Formal Language ◽  
Dynamic Behaviour ◽  
Formal Specifications ◽  
Knowledge Based Systems ◽  
Strategic Knowledge ◽  
Data Types ◽  
Strategic Reasoning ◽  
Knowledge Based ◽  
Algebraic Data Types

AbstractTFL, the Task Formal Language, has been developed for integrating the static and dynamic aspects of knowledge based systems. This paper focuses on the formal specification of dynamic behaviour. Although fundamental in knowledge based systems, strategic reasoning has been rather neglected until now by the existing formal specifications. Most languages were generally more focused on the domain and problem-solving knowledge specification than on the control. The formalisation presented here differs from previous ones in several aspects. First, a different representation of dynamic knowledge is proposed: TFL is based on Algebraic Data Types, as opposed to dynamic or temporal logic. Second, dynamic strategic reasoning is emphasised, whereas existing languages only offer to specify algorithmic control. Then, TFL does not only provide the specification of the problem-solving knowledge of the object system, but also of its strategic knowledge. Finally, the dynamic knowledge of the meta-system itself is also specified. Moreover, modularisation is another important feature of the presented language.

INTEGRATING DISTRIBUTED EXPERTISE

1992 ◽  
Vol 01 (03n04) ◽  
pp. 393-410 ◽  
Author(s):  
EVANGELOS SIMOUDIS ◽  
MARK ADLER
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Expert Systems ◽  
Real World ◽  
Computational Models ◽  
Knowledge Based Systems ◽  
Computing Environment ◽  
The Past ◽  
Knowledge Based ◽  
Narrow Scope ◽  
Distributed Expertise

Over the past ten years a myriad of knowledge-based expert systems have been developed and deployed. These systems have a narrow scope and usually operate in stand-alone mode. They also follow different implementation philosophies and use a variety of reasoning methods. To address problems of wider scope, researchers have developed systems that utilize either centralized or distributed computational models. Each of these systems is homogeneous, and due to the way developed, prohibitively expensive for real-world settings. In this paper we present OMNI, a framework for integrating existing knowledge-based systems in a way that they can cooperate during problem-solving while they remain distributed over a computing environment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document