Domain-driven knowledge modelling: Mediating & intermediate representations for knowledge acquisition

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


Knowledge modelling, despite the existence of numerous techniques and tools, still remain an ad hoc process which is still more of an art than a science. This is due to the fact that there is as yet no systematic or formal theory for it. Naturally, it is a central goal of the Knowledge Acquisition community to make this process more principled. This paper presents a theoretical framework which is an extension of some of the current thinking about knowledge modelling, with hopefully some clarifications. It draws heavily from the knowledge acquisition literature; its key contribution is a novel combination of known techniques into some (hopefully) coherent framework, rather than a radical new philosophy for knowledge modelling. This framework has been used for several projects we have carried out for industrial partners; it is also the basis of a hybrid tool we intend to develop.


Knowledge Acquisition Knowledge Modelling Knowledge Engineer Intermediate Representation Knowledge Type 
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.
    Aakvik, G., AAmodt, A. & Nordbo, I. (1991), “A Knowledge Representation Framework Supporting Knowledge Modelling”, Proceedings of the 5th European Knowledge Acquisition Workshop (EKAW-91), Crieff, Scotland, May.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bradshaw, J. M. & Boose, J. H. (1989), “Knowledge Acquisition as CASE for Knowledge Based Systems”, Paper presented at the 3rd International Workshop on Computer-Aided Software Engineering (CASE-89), London, England, July.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bradshaw, J. M. & Boose, J. H. (1991), “Mediating Representations for Knowledge Acquisiton”, Proceedings of the AAAI-91 Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition: From Theory to Techniques to Tools, Anaheim, California, July.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bradshaw, J. & Woodward, B (1989), “Knowledge Acquisition Tools” (Panel Discussion Summary of IJCAI-89 Knowledge Acquisition Workshop), In Boose, J. & Gaines, B. (eds), Knowledge Acquisition for KBS Newsletter 1 (3), 12.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Breuker, J. A., Wielinga, B. J., van Someren, M., de Hoog, R., Schreiber, G., de Greef, P., Bredeweg, B., Wielemaker, J., Billeaut, J. P., Davoodi, M. & Hayward, S. (1987), Model-Driven Knowledge Acquisition Interpretation Models, Deliverable Task A1, ESPRIT Project 1098, Commission of the European Community.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burton, A. M., Shadbolt, N. R., Hedgecock, A. P., & Rugg, G. (1987) “A formal evaluation of elicitation techniques for expert systems: domain 1”, In Moralee, D. S. (ed), Research and Developments in Expert Systems, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clancey, W. J. (1989), “The Knowledge Level Reinterpreted: Modeling How Systems Interact”, Machine Learning 4,285–291.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Diaper, D. (ed.) (1989), “Designing Expert Systems — from Dan to Beersheba”, In Knowledge Elicitation: Principles, Techniques and Applications, London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ford, K., Stahl, H., Adams-Webber, J., Novak, J. & Jones, J. C. (1990), “ICONKAT: An integrated constructivist knowledge acquisition tool”, Proceedings of AAAI-90 Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition: Practical Tools and Techniques, Boston, Mass., July.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ford, K. M. & Canas, A. J. (1991), “Explanation as a Knowledge Acquisition Issue”, Proceedings of the AAAI-9I Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition: from Theory to Technique to Tools, Anaheim, California, July.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grover, M. D. (1983), “A Pragmatic Knowledge Acquisition Methodology”, Proceedings of IJCAI 8, 436–438.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johnson, N. E. (1989), “Mediating representations in knowledge elicitation”, In Diaper, D. (ed), Knowledge Elicitation: Principles, Techniques and Applications, Chichester: Ellis Horwood, 179–194.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Keravnou, E. & Johnson, L. (1986), Competent Expert System, London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    LaFrance, M. (1987), “The Knowledge Acquisition Grid: a method for training knowledge engineers”, International Journal on Man-Machine Studies 26,245–255.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Linster, M. & Gaines, B. (1990), “Supporting Acquisition and Performance in a Hypermedia Environment”, Paper Presented at Terminology and Knowledge Engineering Workshop, Germany.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morik, K. (1989), “Sloppy Modelling”, In Morik, K. (ed), Knowledge Representation and Organisation in Machine Learning: Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 347, London: Springer Verlag, 107–134.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morik, K. (1991), “Underlying Assumptions of Knowledge Acquisition and Machine Learning”, Knowledge Acquisition 3, 137–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Motta, E., Eisenstadt, M., Pitman, K. & West, M. (1988), “Knowledge acquisition in KEATS: The knowledge engineer's assistant”, Expert Systems 5(2).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Motta, E., Rajan, T. & Eisenstadt, M. (1990), “Knowledge Acquisition as a process of model refinement”, Knowledge Acquisition 2,21–49.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Musen, M. A. (1989), “Conceptual models of interactive knowledge acquisition tools”, Knowledge Acquisition 1, 73–88.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Neale, I. M. (1988), “First generation expert systems: a review of knowledge acquisition methdologies”, The Knowledge Engineering Review 3(2), 105–145.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nwana, H. S., Paton, R. C., Bench-Capon, T. J. M. & Shave, M. J. R. (1991), “Facilitating the Development of Knowledge Based Systems: A Critical Review of Acquisition Tools and Techniques”, AI Communications 4(2/3), 60–73.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Paton, R. C. & Nwana, H. S. (1990), “Domain Characterisation through Knowledge Analysis”, Proceedings of AAAI-90 Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition: Practical Tools and Techniques, Boston, Mass., July.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Paton, R. C., Nwana, H. S., Shave, M. J. R., Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (1991), “From Real World Problems to Domain Chracterisations”, Proceedings of the 5th European Knowledge Acquisition Workshop (EKAW-91), Crieff, Scotland, May.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Recogzei, S. & Plantinga, E. P. O. (1987), “Creating the domain of discourse: ontology and inventory,” International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 27, 235–251.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sandberg, J. (1991), Interview with Bill Clancey, AI Communications.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shaw, M. L. G. (1989), “A Grid-Based Tool for Knowledge Acquisition”, Proceedings of IJCAI-1989 Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition, Detroit, Michigan, 19–22.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shaw, M. L. G. & Gaines, B. R. (1987), “Techniques for knowledge acquisition and transfer”, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 27, 251–280.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Steels, L. (1990), “Components of Expertise”, AI Magazine, Summer 1990, 20–49.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Welbank, M. (1990), “An overview of knowledge acquisition methods”, Interacting with Computers 2(1), 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wetter, T. (1990), “First Order Logic Foundation of the KADS Conceptual Model”, In Wielinga, B., Boose, J., Gaines, B., Schriber, G. & Van Someren, M. (eds), Current Trends in Knowledge Acquisition, Amsterdam: IOS, 356–375.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Woodward, B. (1990), “Knowledge acquisition at the front end: defining the domain”, Knowledge Acquisition 2, 73–94.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of KeeleKeeleUK
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations