Model-driven prototyping — prototype-driven modeling for knowledge-based systems

  • Angi Voß
  • Hans Voß
  • Jürgen Walther
Chapter
Part of the Berichte des German Chapter of the ACM book series (BGCACM)

Abstract

The language MoMo combines modeling and prototyping in the development of knowledge-based systems. It strictly separates application-specific domain knowledge from the generic problem solving method. Hence both parts of a MoMo description are reusable. In MoMo, a prototype is obtained by building an executable KADS-like model of the expertise. The model provides the structure and a high level vocabulary for generating the prototype. Thus, prototype development is model-driven. Vice versa, with growing complexity it is increasingly difficult to validate one’s model. Here, executable models of expertise are as helpful as executable specifications in conventional software engineering. Insofar, modeling is prototype-driven in MoMo.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    C. Batini, S. Ceri, and S. Navathe. Conceptual Database Design. Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Redwood City, CA, 1992.MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    C. Beierle, W. Olthoff, and A. Voß. Towards a formalization of the software development process. In Software engineering 86,IEE Computing Series 6, London, 1986. PeterPeregrinus Ltd.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    B.W. Boehm. A spiral model of software development and enhancement. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 11(4):14 — 24, 1986.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    J. A. Breuker and B. J. Wielinga. Model Driven Knowledge Acquisition. In P. Guida and G. Tasso, editors, Topics in the Design of Expert Systems, pages 265 - 296, Amsterdam, 1989. North Holland.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    T. Bylander, S. Mittal, and B. Chandrasekaran. Csrl: A language for expert systems for diagnosis. In IJCAI-83, pages 218 - 221, 1983.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Michael Ende. Morro. K. Thienemanns Verlag, Stuttgart, 1973.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    D. Fensel, J. Angele, and D. Landes. KARL:: A knowledge acquisition and representation language. In J.C. Rault, editor, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference Expert systems and their applications,volume 1 (Tools, Techniques and Methods), pages 513 — 528, Avignon, 1991. EC2.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Ute Gappa. CLASSIKA: A knowledge acquisition tool for use by experts. In John H. Boose and Brian R. Gaines, editors, Proceedings of KAW89, pages 14/1-14/15. University of Calgary, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    K. Jensen. Coloured petri nets. In W. Brauer, W. Reisig, and G. Rozenberg, editors, Applications and Relationships to Other Models of Concurrency, Advances in Petri Nets 1986 Part I, volume 254 of Lecture Notes of Computer Science, pages 248 — 299. Springer, Berlin, 1987.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    W. Karbach, A. Voß, R. Schukey, and U. Drouven. MODEL-K: Prototyping at the knowledge level. In J.C. Rault, editor, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference Expert systems and their applications,volume 1 (Tools, Techniques and Methods), pages 501 — 511, Avignon, 1991. EC2.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    A. Kieback, H. Lichter, M. Schneider-Hufschmidt, and H. Züllighoven. Proto-typing in industriellen Software-Projekten: Erfahrungen und Analysen. Informatik Spektrum, 15(2):65 — 77, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Marc Linster. Knowledge acquisition based on explicit methods of problem-solving. PhD thesis, University of Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, February 1992.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    S. Marcus and J. McDermott. SALT: A knowledge acquisition language for propose-and-revise systems. Artificial Intelligence, 39 (1): 1 - 38, 1989.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Alan Newell. The knowledge level. Artificial Intelligence, 18:87 — 127, 1982.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    P. Rademakers and R. Pfeifer. The role of knowledge level models in situated adaptive design. In B. Neumann, editor, Proceedings ECA I-92, pages 601 —602. John Wiley and Sons, 1992.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    W.W. Royce. Managing the development of large software systems: Concepts and techniques. In WESCON, 1970.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    E. Shortliffe and Bruce Buchanan. Rule-Based Expert Systems: The MYCIN Experiments of the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project. Addison Wesley, Reading MA, 1984.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Luc Steels. Components of expertise. AI Magazine,11(2):28 — 49, 1990.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Jan Treur. Formal specification methods for complex reasoning systems. ECAI’92 Workshop Proceedings, Vienna, 1992.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    F. van Harmelen and J. Balder. (ML) 2: A formal language for kads models of expertise. ESPRIT Project P5248 KADS-II KADS-II/T1.2/PP/UvA/17/1. 0, University of Amsterdam, November 1991.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Jürgen Walther, Angi Voß, Marc Linster, Thomas Hemmann, Hans Voß, and Werner Karbach. Momo. Technical report, Gesellschaft für Mathematik und Datenverarbeitung (GMD ), 1992.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    E. Yourdon. Modern Structured Analysis. Prentice-Hill International Editions, Englewood Cliffs, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© B. G. Teubner Stuttgart 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angi Voß
    • 1
  • Hans Voß
    • 1
  • Jürgen Walther
    • 1
  1. 1.Artificial Intelligence Research DivisionGerman National Research Center for Computer-Science (GMD)Sankt AugustinGermany

Personalised recommendations