Efficient frame systems

Knowledge Representation
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 390)


Frame systems occupy an important place among formalisms for computer-based knowledge representation. A common concern about frame systems is that they are not efficient enough. We argue that this is not necessarily true of all possible systems, and that the trade-off between representational power and efficiency has not been fully explored. It is possible, in particular, to design frame systems that retain much of the flexibility while providing excellent performance. Such systems are well suited for applications that need flexible knowledge representation but cannot afford the high performance price.


Knowledge Representation Semantic Network Defense Advance Research Project Agency Frame System Functional Interface 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Anderson, J.R. and Bower, G.H., Human Associative Memory. Holt, New York, 1973.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brachman, R.J. A structural paradigm for representing knowledge. Ph.D. Th., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, May 1977.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brachman, R.J. On the epistemological status of semantic networks. In Associative Networks: Representation and Use of Knowledge by Computers, Academic Press, New York, 1979, pp. 3–50.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brachman, R.J. and Schmolze, J.G. "An overview of the KL-ONE knowledge representation system". Cognitive Science 9 2 (April–June 1983), 170–216.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Linda G. DeMichiel. "Overview: The Common Lisp Object System". LISP ard Symbolic Computation 1, 3/4 (January 1989), 227–244.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fox, M.S., Wright, J.M., and Adam, D. Experiences with SRL: an analysis of a frame-based knowledge representation. First International Workshop on Expert Database Systems, 1984.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dario Giuse. KR: an efficient knowledge representation system. Tech. Rept. CMU-RI-TR-87-23, The Robotics Institute, Carnegie-Mellon University, October, 1987.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dario Giuse. "LISP as a rapid prototyping environment: the Chinese Tutor". LISP and Symbolic Computation 1, 2 (September 1988), 165–184.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dario Giuse. Intelligent Tutoring Systems for Foreign Language Acquisition. proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Conference on Computer Education (APCCE 88), Shanghai, China, 1988, pp. 33–58.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dario Giuse. KR: Constraint-Based Knowledge Representation. Tech. Rept. CMU-CS-89-142, Computer Science Department, Carnegie-Mellon University, April, 1989.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dario Giuse. Frame Systems as Object-Oriented Systems. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Knowledge Craft Reference Manual. Carnegie Group, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 1986.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mac Randal, D. Semantic Networks. In Approaches to knowledge representation: an introduction, Research Studies Press, Inc., Forest Grove, OR, 1988, pp. 45–79.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    David B. McDonald. CMU Common Lisp User's Manual — Mach/IBM RT PC Edition. Tech. Rept. CMU-CS-87-156, Computer Science Department, Carnegie-Mellon University, September, 1987.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Minsky, M., Computers and thought. McGraw Hill, New York, 1963.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brad A. Myers. The Garnet User Interface Development Environment: A Proposal. Tech. Rept. CMU-CS-88-153, Carnegie-Mellon University, September, 1988.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brad A. Myers, Brad Vander Zanden, and Roger B. Dannenberg. Creating Graphical Objects by Demonstration. Submitted for Publication.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nyberg, E.H. The FrameKit user's guide. Center for Machine Translation, Carnegie Mellon University, March, 1988.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Quillian, M.R. "Word concepts: a theory and simulation of some basic semantic capabilities". Behavioral Science 12 (1967).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Quillian, M.R. Semantic Memory. In Semantic Information Processing, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1968, pp. 227–270.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shapiro, S.C. "Representing and locating deduction rules in a semantic network". SIGART Newsletter 63 (June 1977), 14–18.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Steele, G.L., Common LISP — The Language. Digital Press, Burlington, MA, 1984.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pedro A. Szekely and Brad A. Myers. "A User Interface Toolkit Based on Graphical Objects and Constraints". Sigplan Notices 23, 11 (Nov. 1988), 36–45.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brad Vander Zanden, Brad A. Myers, Dario Giuse, and John Kolojejchick. An Incremental Automatic Redisplay Algorithm for Graphic Object Systems. Submitted for Publication.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Woods, W.A. What's in a link: foundations for semantic networks. In Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science, Academic Press, New York, 1975, pp. 35–82.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sheryl R. Young, Alexander G. Hauptmann, Wayne H. Ward, Edward T. Smith, and Philip Werner. "High-level Knowledge Sources in Usable Speech Recognition Systems". Communications of the ACM 32, 2 (February 1989), 183–194.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Robotics InstituteCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations