Search
  • All Journals
Advanced Search
Search articles by Title, Author, Keywords, DOI
3.9CiteScore
1.3Impact Factor
Advanced Search
MAP  >  The Knowledge Engineering Review
1984 Volume 1
Article Contents
Next Previous
RESEARCH ARTICLE   Open Access    

Criteria for Choosing Representation Languages and Control Regimes for Expert Systems

More Information
  • 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.
  • 加载中
  • [1]Alvey P. (1983). Problems of designing a medical expert system. Expert Systems83, pp.20–42.

    Google Scholar

    2Beck 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.

    Google Scholar

    4Brachman 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 Press

    Google Scholar

    5Breuker 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

    6Breuker J. & Wielinga B. (1985) KADS: Structured Knowledge Acquisition for Expert Systems. VF-Memo 40, University of Amsterdam

    Google Scholar

    7Brown 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

    8Brown 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

    10Chandrasekaran 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

    11Chandrasekaran B., (1985) Expert Systems: Matching Techniques to Tasks, in: Artificial Intelligence Applications for Business, Reitman W. (ed), Ablex Corp.

    Google Scholar

    12Stiklen 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

    13Clancey W. (1984) Classification problem solving. AAAI-84, 49–55.

    Google Scholar

    14Clancey W. (1985) Heuristic Classification. Stanford University Knowledge Systems Labaoratory, Technical report KSL-85–5.

    Google Scholar

    15Hart P. (1982) direction for AI in the eighties. SIGART Newsletter, 79.

    Google Scholar

    16Hayes-Roth F., Waterman D. & Lenat D. (eds.) (1983). Building expert systems. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar

    17Jackson 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).

    Google 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

    20Fagan L. (1980) VM, Representing time-dependent relations in a medical setting. Ph.D. Diss. Computer Science Department, Stanford University.

    Google Scholar

    21Jackson 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.

    Google Scholar

    23Miller P. (1983) Medical plan analysis: The attending system. IJCAI-83, 239–41.

    Google Scholar

    24Pople H. (1977) The formation of composite hypotheses in diagnostic problem-solving: An exercise in synthetic reasoning. IJCAI–77, 1030–37.

    Google Scholar

    25Shortliffe E. (1976) Computer-based medical consultation: MYCIN. New York: American Elsevier.

    Google Scholar

    26Shortliffe E. (1985) Update on ONCOCIN, A chemotherapy advisor for clinical oncology. Medical Informatics

    Google Scholar

    27Bobrow 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 EvaluationThe Artifical Intelligence Report, Vol. 2, No. 8, 081985.

    Google Scholar

    30Williams 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.

    Google Scholar

    [33]Doyle J. (1979) A truth-maintenance system. Artificial Intelligence, 12, 231–72.

    Google Scholar

    34Reichgelt 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

    36Mamdani E.H., Gaines B.R. (eds.), Fuzzy Reasoning and its ApplicationsAcademic Press, 1981.

    Google Scholar

    37Negoita C. (1985) Expert systems and fuzzy systems. Menlo Park, Cal.: Benjamin/Cummings.

    Google Scholar

    38Parker 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

    39Whalen 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. 888–900

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar

    41Zadeh L. (1979) A theory of approximate reasoning. In Hayes J., Michie D. & Mikulich L. (eds) Machine Intelligence9. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar

    42Haack S. (1974) Deviant logic: Some philosophical issues. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar

    43Hughes G. & Cresswell M. (1968) An introduction to modal logic. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar

    44Mates B. (1972) Elementary logic (2nd edition) Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar

    45Moore 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

    46Rescher N. & Urquhart A. (1971) Temporal logic. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar

    47Turner R. (1984) Logics for artificial intelligence. Chichester: Horwood.

    Google Scholar

    48van Benthem J. (1982) The Logic of time. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar

    49van Dalen D. (1983) Logic and struture (2nd edition) Berlin: Springer-Verlag

    Google Scholar

    50Davis R. & Buchanan B.. (1977) Meta-level Knowledge: Overview and applications. IJCAI-77, 920–27.

    Google Scholar

    51van Harmelen F. (1986) Improving the efficiency of meta-level reasoning. Discussion Paper, Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar

  • Cite this article

    Han Reichgelt, Frank van Harmelen. 1984. Criteria for Choosing Representation Languages and Control Regimes for Expert Systems. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 1: doi: 10.1017/S026988890000062X
    Han Reichgelt, Frank van Harmelen. 1984. Criteria for Choosing Representation Languages and Control Regimes for Expert Systems. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 1: doi: 10.1017/S026988890000062X
    shu
Download PDF

Article Metrics

Article views(33) PDF downloads(44)

Other Articles By Authors

RESEARCH ARTICLE   Open Access    

Criteria for Choosing Representation Languages and Control Regimes for Expert Systems

  • Published online: 07 July 2009
The Knowledge Engineering Review  1,  Article number: 10.1017/S026988890000062X  (1984)  |  Cite this article

Abstract: 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.

    HTML

    Rights and permissions
    • Copyright © Cambridge University Press 19841984Cambridge University Press
References (52)
  • About this article
    Cite this article
    Han Reichgelt, Frank van Harmelen. 1984. Criteria for Choosing Representation Languages and Control Regimes for Expert Systems. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 1: doi: 10.1017/S026988890000062X
    Han Reichgelt, Frank van Harmelen. 1984. Criteria for Choosing Representation Languages and Control Regimes for Expert Systems. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 1: doi: 10.1017/S026988890000062X
    shu

    • Catalog

      /

      DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
      Return
      Return