User Aspects of Explanation Aware CBR Systems

  • Jörg Cassens
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3585)


This paper addresses the problem of embedding explanation-aware intelligent systems into a workplace environment. We outline an approach with three different perspectives, focusing on the work process as a whole as well as user interaction from an interface and a system view. The theoretical background consists of Actor Network Theory, Semiotics, and Activity Theory. We further propose to integrate this workplace analysis into a design process for knowledge-intensive and explanation-aware Case-Based Reasoning systems.


  1. 1.
    Swartout, W.: What Kind of Expert Should a System be? XPLAIN: A System for Creating and Explaining Expert Consulting Programs. Artificial Intelligence 21, 285–325 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buchanan, B.G., Shortliffe, E.H.: Rule-Based Expert Systems: The MYCIN Experiments of the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project. Addison Wesley, Reading (1984)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Swartout, W., Smoliar, S.: On Making Expert Systems More Like Experts. Expert Systems 4, 196–207 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leake, D.B.: Goal-Based Explanation Evaluation. In: Ram, A., Leake, D.B. (eds.) Goal-Driven Learning, pp. 251–285. MIT Press/Bradford Books, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aamodt, A., Plaza, E.: Case-Based Reasoning: Foundational Issues, Methodological Variations, and System Approaches. AI Communications 7, 39–59 (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roth-Berghofer, T.R., Cassens, J.: Mapping Goals and Kinds of Explanations to the Knowledge Containers of Case-Based Reasoning Systems. In: Muñoz-Avila, H., Ricci, F. (eds.) ICCBR 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3620, pp. 451–464. Springer, Heidelberg (2005) (to appear)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Latour, B.: Technology is Society made Durable. In: Law, J. (ed.) A Sociology of Monsters, Routledge, pp. 103–131 (1991)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Monteiro, E.: Actor-Network Theory. In: Ciborra, C. (ed.) From Control to Drift, pp. 71–83. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nake, F.: Human-Computer Interaction – Signs and Signals Interfacing. Languages of Design 2, 193–205 (1994)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Andersen, P.B.: What Semiotics Can and Cannot do for HCI. Knowledge-Based Systems 14, 419–424 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bødker, S.: Activity Theory as a Challenge to Systems Design. In: Nissen, H.E., Klein, H., Hirschheim, R. (eds.) Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, pp. 551–564. North Holland, Amsterdam (1991)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fjeld, M., Lauche, K., Bichsel, M., Voorhoorst, F., Krueger, H., Rauterberg, M.: Physcial and Virtual Tools: Activity Theory Applied to the Design of Groupware. CSCW 11, 153–180 (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kofod-Petersen, A., Cassens, J.: Activity Theory and Context-Awareness. In: Roth-Berghofer, T.R., Schulz, S., Leake, D.B. (eds.) MRC 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3946, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2006) (to appear)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jörg Cassens
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information Science (IDI)Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations