CERISE: A cyclic approach for knowledge acquisition

  • Catherine Vicat
  • Alain Busac
  • Jean-Gabriel Ganascia
Life Cycle and Methodologies Refinement
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 723)

Abstract

In this paper, we present CERISE, a workbench for cyclic acquisition of knowledge.

Our approach is based on the following features:

The origin of this approach is to be found in the KADS modelisation.

This approach is complete because it guides the expert during the acquisition process right to the expression of knowledge rules.

Moreover, it is twice cyclic:
  • an “internal” acquisition cycle is supported by a progressive refinement of the knowledge model;

  • an “external” cycle, made possible by the operationnalization of CERISE, is supported by the validation of the model on real data.

Lastly, this approach is checked, in order to preserve the internal coherence of various knowledge models along the acquisition process.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    B.J. Wielinga, A. Th. Schreiber, J.A. Breuker: KADS: a modelling approach to knowledge engineering. In Knowledge Acquisition, p.5–53, Vol.4, March 1992.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. de Hoog, R. Martil, B. Wielinga, R. Taylor, C. Bright: The Common KADS model set. ESPRIT Project P5248 KADS-II, Document Id. KADS-II/WP I II/RR/UvA/018/3.2. April 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. Van Harmelen, J. Balder: (ML)2: A formal language for KADS models of expertise. In knowledge Acquisition, p.127–161, Vol.4, March 1992.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D.L. Parnas, P.C. Clement: A Rational Design Process: how and why to fake it. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. SE-12, n∘2, Feb. 1986, p.251–257.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Linster: Linking modeling to make sense and modeling to implement systems in an operational environment. In T. Wetter, K.D Althoff, J. Boose, B. Gaines, M. Linster, and F. Schmalhofers, editors, EKAW92, LNAI, Heidelberg, January 1992.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    L. Steels: Components of Expertise. AI Magazine, Summer 1990Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    W. Karbach, M. Linster, A. Voss: Models, methods, roles and tasks: many labels_one idea? Knowledge Acquisition (1990) 2, p. 279–299.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    B. Chandrasekaran: Generic tasks in knowledge-based reasoning: high level building blocks for expert system design. IEEE Expert, Automn 1986. p. 23–30.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M.A. Musen: Automated Generation of Model-Based Knowledge-Acquisition Tools, Pitman Publishing, London, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    L. Eshelman: MOLE: A Knowledge-Acquisition Tool for Cover-and-Differentiate Systems. Sandra Marcus editor. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    B.J. Wielinga, A. Th. Schreiber, J.A. Breuker: Models of Expertise. European Conference of Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 86), 1986.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    P. Lévine and J.-CH Pomerol: Knowledge Representation by Schemata in Financial Expert Systems. Theory and Decision 27 (1989) 147–161Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Suwa, A. Scott, E. Shortliffe: An approach to verifying Completeness and Correctness in a Rule-Based Expert System. In the AI Magazine Fall 1982, p.16–21.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    T.A. N'Guyen, W.A. Perkins, T.J. Laffay, D. Pecora: Checking an Expert System Knowledge Base for Consistency and Completeness. In the Proceedings of IJCAI'85, p.375–378.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. Ravi Prakash, E. Subrahmanian, H.N. Mahabala: A Methodology for Systematic Verification of OPS5-Based AI Applications. In the Proceedings of UCAI'91, Vol.1, p.3–8.Sidney, Australia. 1991.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Loiseau: Refinement of Knowledge Bases Based on Consistency. In the Proceedings of ECAI'92, p.845–849. Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    P. Meseguer: Incremental Verification of Rule-Based Expert Systems. In the Proceedings of ECAI'92, p.840–844. Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    C. Vicat, P. Brezillon, C. Nottola: Knowledge validation in the building of a knowledge-based system. Proceedings of EUROVAV'93. Palma. Spain.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. Enand, G.S. Kahn, R.A. Mills: A Methodology for Validating Large Knowledge-Bases. Proceedings of the 3rd AAAI Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop, p.5.1–5.11, Banff, November, 1988.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    I. Benbasat, J.S Dhaliwal: The validation of knowledge acquisition: methodology and techniques, in Third European Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems, p.60–69, Paris, July 1989. EKAW.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    D. Canamero, S. Geldof: Coupling Modeling and Validation in COMMET. 4èmes Jounées d'Acquisition des Connaissances, 29 mars–2 avril 1993, Saint-Raphael, France.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    F. Brassier, J.Y. Lapicque, A. Rouge: Vital Quality Approach and Vital Verification and Validation Methodology. Esprit II Project P5365, Document reference: DD121, April 1992.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    P. Lafon: Méthodes de Vérification de Bases de Connaissances. E.N.P.C. Thesis. December 91. France.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    S. Xanthakis, L. Maesano, A. Le Gall, E. Rabaux: Application de l'analyse du flot de données pour la vérification d'un modèle conceptuel KADS. Journées Francophones de la Validation et de la Vérification des Systèmes à Base de Connaissances, Dourdan, Avril 1992. France.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    T. Williams, K. Parker: Design for testability: a survey. IEEE Transactions on computers, Vol 31, n∘1, 1982Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    D. Porter: An inference structure for use in the fraud assessment domain. Proceedings of 2nd KADS User Meeting. Munich, 17–18 february 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catherine Vicat
    • 1
  • Alain Busac
    • 1
  • Jean-Gabriel Ganascia
    • 2
  1. 1.Banque de France DOD-CIANoisielFrance
  2. 2.LAFORIAUniversité Paris VIParis Cedex 05

Personalised recommendations