Conceptual models for automatic generation of knowledge-acquisition tools

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 599)


Interactive knowledge-acquisition (KA) programs allow users to enter relevant domain knowledge according to a model predefined by the tool developers. KA tools are designed to provide conceptual models of the knowledge to their users. Many different classes of models are possible, resulting in different categories of tools. Whenever it is possible to describe KA tools according to explicit conceptual models, it is also possible to edit the models and to instantiate new KA tools automatically for specialized purposes. Several meta-tools that address this task have been implemented. Meta-tools provide developers of domain-specific KA tools with generic design models, or meta-views, of the emerging KA tools. The same KA tool can be specified according to several alternative meta-views.


Conceptual Model Expert System Knowledge Acquisition Domain Expert Transformation Rule 
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.
    J. S. Bennett. ROGET: A knowledge-based system for acquiring the conceptual structure of a diagnostic expert system. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 1(1):49–74, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. H. Boose. A knowledge acquisition program for expert systems based on personal construct psychology. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 23(5):495–525, 1985.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. H. Boose and J. M. Bradshaw. Expertise transfer and complex problems: Using AQUINAS as a knowledge-acquisition workbench for knowledge-based systems. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 26(1):3–28, 1987.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Chandrasekaran. Generic tasks in knowledge-based reasoning: High-level building blocks for expert system design. IEEE Expert, 1(3):23–30, 1986.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    W. J. Clancey. Heuristic classification. Artificial Intelligence, 27(3):289–350, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Davis. Interactive transfer of expertise: Acquisition of new inference rules. Artificial Intelligence, 12(2):121–157, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. Eriksson. Architectural issues in KA tools: Towards structured transformation into knowledge-bases. In Proceedings of the Fifth European Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop, EKAW'91, Crieff, Scotland, May 1991.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    H. Eriksson. Meta-Tool Support for Knowledge Acquisition. PhD thesis 244, Linköping University, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. Eriksson. Domain-oriented knowledge acquisition tool for protein purification planning. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences, 32(1):90–95, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    L. Eshelman, D. Ehret, J. McDermott, and M. Tan. MOLE: A tenacious knowledge-acquisition tool. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 26(1):41–54, 1987.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. Evans. Expert systems and HyperCard. Byte, 15(1):317–324, Jan. 1990.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    W. A. Gale. Knowledge-based knowledge acquisition for a statistical consulting system. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 26(1):55–64, 1987.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    U. Gappa. A tool-box for generating graphical knowledge acquisition environments. In Proc. of the World Congress on Expert Systems, Orlando, FL, Dec. 1991.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. Kahn, S. Nowlan, and J. McDermott. Strategies for knowledge acquisition. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, PAMI, 7(5):511–522, 1985.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    W. Karbach, M. Linster, and A. Voß. Models, methods, roles and tasks: Many labels-one idea? Knowledge Acquisition, 2(4):279–299, 1990.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Kawaguchi, H. Motoda, and R. Mizoguchi. Interview-based knowledge acquisition using dynamic analysis. IEEE Expert, 6(5):47–60, Oct. 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    G. Klinker, J. Bentolila, S. Genetet, M. Grimes, and J. McDermott. KNACK: report-driven knowledge acquisition. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 26(1):65–79, 1987.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    G. Klinker, C. Bhola, G. Dallemagne, D. Marques, and J. McDermott. Usable and reusable programming constructs. Knowledge Acquisition, 3(2):117–135, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. Marcus and J. McDermott. SALT: a knowledge acquisition language for propose-and-revise systems. Artificial Intelligence, 39(1):1–37, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. Marques, G. Klinker, G. Dallemagne, P. Gautier, J. McDermott, and D. Tung. More data on usable and reusable programming constructs. In J. H. Boose and B. R. Gaines, editors, Proc. of the Sixth Banff Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop, pages 14.1–14.19, Banff, Canada, Oct. 1991.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    J. McCarthy and P. J. Hayes. Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. Machine Intelligence, 4:463–502, 1969.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. McDermott. Preliminary steps toward a taxonomy of problem-solving methods. In S. Marcus, editor, Automating Knowledge Acquisition for Expert Systems, chapter 8, pages 225–256. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, Massachusetts, 1988.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    E. Motta, T. Rajan, and M. Eisenstadt. Knowledge acquisition as a process of model refinement. Knowledge Acquisition, 2(1):21–49, 1990.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    M. A. Musen. Automated Generation of Model-Based Knowledge-Acquisition Tools. Morgan-Kaufmann, San Mateo, California, 1989.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    M. A. Musen. Conceptual models of interactive knowledge acquisition tools. Knowledge Acquisition, 1(1):73–88, 1989.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    M. A. Musen. An editor for the conceptual models of interactive knowledge-acquisition tools. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 31(6):673–698, 1989.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    M. A. Musen, L. M. Fagan, D. M. Combs, and E. H. Shortliffe. Use of a domain model to drive an interactive knowledge-editing tool. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 26(1):105–121, 1987.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    A. Newell. The knowledge level. Artificial Intelligence, 18(1):87–127, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    S. W. Tu, M. G. Kahn, M. A. Musen, J. C. Ferguson, E. H. Shortliffe, and L. M. Fagan. Episodic skeletal-plan refinement based on temporal data. Commun. ACM, 32(12):1439–1455, 1989.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    B. J. Wielinga, A. T. Schreiber, and J. A. Breuker. KADS: a modelling approach to knowledge engineering. Knowledge Acquisition, in press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Medical Computer Science Group Knowledge Systems LaboratoryStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations