Advertisement

Knowledge Acquisition from Multiple Experts Based on Semantics of Concepts

  • Seppo Puuronen
  • Vagan Terziyan
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1621)

Abstract

This paper presents one approach to acquire knowledge from multiple experts. The experts are grouped into a multilevel hierarchical structure, according to the type of knowledge acquired. The first level consists of experts who have knowledge about the basic objects and their relationships. The second level of experts includes those who have knowledge about the relationships of the experts at the first level and each higher level accordingly. We show how to derive the most supported opinion among the experts at each level. This is used to order the experts into categories of their competence defined as the support they get from their colleagues.

Keywords

Knowledge Acquisition Knowledge Source Domain Object Conceptual Graph Multiple Expert 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arens, Y., Chee, C., Hsu, C., Knoblock, C.: Retrieving and Integrating Data from Multiple Information Sources. International Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, Vol. 2,No. 2 (1993) 127–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aussenac-Gilles, N., Bourigault, D., Condamines, A., Gros, C.: How Can Knowledge Acquisition Benefit from Terminology? In: A. Nuopponen (ed.), Terminology Forum, Library: Terminology Science and Work, Available in http://www.irit.fr/ACTIVITES/EQ_SMI/PUBLI/banff95.html.
  3. 3.
    Cointe, C.: Guide to Manage Conflicts in Concurrent Engineering: A Multi-Agent Architecture. In: K. Reger (ed.), Building Tomorrow’s Virtual Enterprise: Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Concurrent Engineering-CEE’97, SCS, Germany (1997).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cointe, C., Matta, N., Ribiere, M.: Design Propositions Evaluation: Using Viewpoint to manage conflicts in CREOPS2. In: S. Ganesan, B. Prasad (eds.), Advanced in Concurrent Engineering, Proceedings of ISPE 4th International Conference on Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications (CE’97), Rochester, Michigan, USA (1997) 336–343.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Corby, O., Dieng, R.: Cokace: a Centaur-Based Environment for CommonKADS Conceptual Modelling Language. In: W. Wahlster (ed.), Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on AI-ECAI’96, Budapest, Hungary (1996) 418–422.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dieng, R.: Comparison of Conceptual Graphs for Modelling Knowledge of Multiple Experts. ISMIS (1996) 78–87.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dieng, R., Corby, O., Labidi, S.: Agent-Based Knowledge Acquisition. In: L. Steels, G. Schreiber, W. de Velde (eds.), A Future for Knowledge Acquisition: Proceedings of the 8th European Knowledge Acquisition Workshop-EKAW’94, Hoegaarden, Belgium (1994) 63–82.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dieng, R., Hug, S.: Comparison of “Personal Ontologies“ Represented through Conceptual Graphs. In: H. Prade (ed.), Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence-ECAI’98, Brighton, UK (1998) 341–345.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dieng, R.: Knowledge Acquisition for Explainable, Multi-expert, Design Systems. Available in http://www.inria.fr/acacia/present-Acacia.html.
  10. 10.
    Franklin, S.: Autonomous Agents as Embodied AI. Cybernetics and Systems, Vol. 28,No. 6 (1997) 499–520.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gappa, U., Puppe, F.: A Study in Knowledge Acquisition — Experiences from the Sisyphus III Experiment for Rock Classification, to appear in Proceedings of KAW-98: 12th Banff Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop (1998), Available in www:http://ki-server.informatik.uniwuerzburg.de/forschung/publikationen/lehrstuhl/Sisy-III-98/sisy-III-98.html
  12. 12.
    Goto, S., Nojima, H.: Equilibrium Analysis of the Distribution of Information in Human Society. Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 75,No. 1 (1995) 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Larson, R., Segal, G.: Knowledge of Meaning. An Introduction to Semantic Theory. A Bradford Book (1995).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leroux, B., Laublet P.: An approach to knowledge acquisition combining alternate steps of constructive modelling and elicitation. In: P. Brezillon et V. Stefanuk (Eds), East-West Artificial Intelligence Conference, Moscow (1993) 138–143.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mak, B., Bui, T., Blanning, R.: Aggregating and Updating Experts’ Knowledge: An Experimental Evaluation of Five Classification Techniques. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 10,No. 2 (1996) 233–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Matta, N., Cointe, C.: Concurrent Engineering and Conflicts Management Guides. In: A. Riitahuhta (ed.), World Class Design by World Class Methods, Proceedings of the 11th Int. Conference on Engineering Design (ICED97), Tampere, Finland (1997) 761–766.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Medsker, L., Tan, M., Turban, E.: Knowledge Acquisition from Multiple Experts: Problems and Issues. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 9,No. 1 (1995) 35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A Protocol for Building Consensual and Consistent Repositories: INRIA research report RR-3260, available in http://www.inria.fr/RRRT/RR-3260.html.
  19. 19.
    Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence, A. H. Bond and L. Gasser (eds.), Morgan Kaumann, 1988.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ribiere, M., Dieng, R.: Introduction of Viewpoints in Conceptual Graph Formalism. In: D. Lukose, H. Delugach, M. Keeler, L. Searle, J. Sowa (eds.), Conceptual Structures: Fulfilling Peirce’s Dream, Fifth International Conference on Conceptual Structures (ICCS’97), LNAI, 1257 (1997) 168–182.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roos, N.: A Logic for Reasoning with Inconsistent Knowledge. Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 57,No. 1 (1992) 69–103.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schmalhofer, F., Tschaitschian, B.: Cooperative Knowledge Evolution for Complex Domains. In: Tecuci, G. and Kodratoff, Y., (eds.), Machine Learning and Knowledge Acquisition: Integrated Approaches. London: Academic Press (1995) 145–166.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Taylor, W., Weimann, D., Martin, P.: Knowledge Acquisition and Synthesis in a Multiple Source Multiple Domain Process Context. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 8,No. 2 (1995) 295–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Turban, E., Tan, M.: International Journal of Applied Expert Systems. Vol. 1,No. 2 (1993) 101–119.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wielinga, B., Van de Velde, W., Schreiber, A., Akkermans, J.: Towards a Unification of Knowledge Modelling Approaches. In: J. David, J. Krivine, and R. Simmons (eds.), Second Generation Expert Systems,. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, Germany (1993) 299–335.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seppo Puuronen
    • 1
  • Vagan Terziyan
    • 2
  1. 1.University of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  2. 2.Kharkov State Technical University of RadioelectronicsKharkovUkraine

Personalised recommendations