Advertisement

Linking modeling to make sense and modeling to implement systems in an operational modeling environment

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

Abstract

We argue that knowledge acquisition for knowledge-based systems is a constructive model-building process. We derive several requirements for modeling languages from this view on knowledge acquisition. We put a special focus on requirements that arise if one wants to support both model building to make sense and modeling to implement systems with one language. For example, among others such languages should support multi-faceted, bottom-up construing of behaviors, and they should have operational semantics.

We introduce the operational modeling language OMOS. OMOS is an experimental study that — in a KADS-like fashion-allows multi-faceted model building from a method and a domain point of view, but, unlike KADS conceptual models, results in directly operational systems.

Finally, we compare OMOS to other recent developments to put our work in context.

Keywords

Knowledge Acquisition Task Model Inference Action Knowledge Engineer Domain Relation 
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. [Bernardi et al., 1991]
    Ansgar Bernardi, Harold Boley, Christoph Klauck, Philip Hanschke, Knut Hinkelmann, Ralf Legleitner, Otto Kühn, Manfred Mayer, Michael Richter, Franz Schmalhofer, Gabi Schmidt, and Walter Sommer. Arc-tec: Acquisition, representation and compilation of technical knowledge. In Jean-Paul Haton and Jean-Claude Rault, editors, Proceedings of Avignon 91, volume 1, pages 133–145, Avignon, France, 1991. EC2.Google Scholar
  2. [Boose, 1985]
    John H. Boose. A knowledge acquisition program for expert systems based on personal construct psychology. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 23:495–525, 1985.Google Scholar
  3. [Brachman and Schmolze, 1985]
    R. Brachman and G.J. Schmolze. An overwiev of the KL-ONE knowledge representation system. Cognitive Science, 9(11):216–260, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [Diederich et al., 1987]
    Joachim Diederich, Ingo Ruhmann, and Mark May. KRITON: A knowledge acquisition tool for expert systems. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 26:29–40, 1987.Google Scholar
  5. [Karbach et al., 1991]
    Werner Karbach, Angi Voß, Ralf Schukey, and Uwe Drouven. MODEL-K: Prototyping at the knowledge level. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Knowledge Modeling and Expertise Transfer, Sophia Antipolis, France, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. [Klinker et al., 1990]
    Georg Klinker, Carlos Bhola, Geoffroy Dallemange, David Marques, and John McDermott. Usable and reusable programming constructs. In John H. Boose and Brian R. Gaines, editors, Proceedings of KAW90, pages 14–1–14–20, Calgary, 1990. AAAI, University of Calgary.Google Scholar
  7. [Kühn et al., 1991]
    Otto Kühn, Marc Linster, and Gabi Schmidt. Clamping, COKAM, KADS and OMOS. In Duncan Smeed, Marc Linster, John H. Boose, and Brian R. Gaines, editors, Proceedings of EKAW91. University of Strathclyde, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. [Linster and Musen, 1992]
    Marc Linster and Mark Musen. Use of KADS to create a conceptual model of the ONCOCIN task. Knowledge Acquisition, Special Issue on KADS, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. [Linster, 1991]
    Marc Linster. Tackling the office-planning problem with OMOS. In Duncan Smeed, Marc Linster, John H. Boose, and Brian R. Gaines, editors, Proceedings of EKAW91, Glasgow, 1991. University of Strathclyde.Google Scholar
  10. [Marques et al., 1991]
    David Marques, Georg Klinker, Geoffroy Dallemange, Patrice Gautier, John McDermott, and David Tung. More data on reusable programming constructs. In John Boose and Mark Musen, editors, Proceedings of the 6th Banff Knowledge Acquisition Workshop, pages 14/1–14/19, University of Calgary, 1991. AAAI, University of Calgary.Google Scholar
  11. [McDermott, 1988]
    John McDermott. Preliminary steps toward a taxonomy of problem-solving methods. In Sandra Marcus, editor, Automating Knowledge Acquisition for Expert Systems, pages 225–256. Kluwer Academic, Boston, 1988.Google Scholar
  12. [Puerta et al., 1991]
    Angel Puerta, John Edgar, Samson Tu, and Mark Musen. A multiple-method knowledge-acquisition shell for the automatic generation of knowledge-acquisition tools. In John Boose and Brian Gaines, editors, Proceedings of the 6th Banff Knowledge Acquisition Workshop, pages 20/1–20/19, University of Calgary, 1991. AAAI, University of Calgary.Google Scholar
  13. [Tu et al., 1991]
    Samson Tu, Yuval Shahar, John Dawes, James Winkles, Angel Puerta, and Mark Musen. A problem-solving model for episodic skeletal-plan refinement. In John Boose and Mark Musen, editors, Proceedings of the 6th Banff Knowledge Acquisition Workshop, pages 34/1–34/20, University of Calgary, 1991. AAAI, University of Calgary.Google Scholar
  14. [Wielinga et al., 1992]
    Bob Wielinga, Guus Schreiber, and Jost Breuker. KADS: A modelling approach to knowledge engineering. Knowledge Acquisition, Special Issue on KADS, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AI Research DivisionGMDAugustin 1FRG

Personalised recommendations