Advertisement

Agent-based knowledge acquisition

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 867)

Abstract

This paper presents our approach for knowledge acquisition from multiple experts. In order to build a cooperative KBS, representing the knowledge of several experts and intended to multiple users inside an organization, we propose a model of cognitive agent for guiding the process of knowledge acquisition. This model of agent can serve as a basis for specifying the future KBS to be integrated in the organization. An agent-based knowledge acquisition is then seen as the process of identifying the adequate agents and of filling them (both their individual characteristics such as their expertise model or their knowledge graphs, and their social features such as their integration in an organization or their cooperation capabilities).

Keywords

Knowledge Acquisition Artificial Agent Knowledge Engineer Expertise Model Knowledge Graph 
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.
    The Common KADS Agent Model, KADS-II/M4/TR/SICS/002/V1.1. May 1993.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ch. Amergé, O. Corby, R. Dieng, D. Fleury, A. Giboin, S. Labidi, and S. Lapalut. Acquisition et modélisation des connaissances dans le cadre d'une coopération entre plusieurs experts: Application à un système d'aide à l'analyse de l'accident de la route. Rapport intermédiaire du contrat MRE n∘ 92 C 0757, décembre 1993.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. H. Bond. The Cooperation of Experts in Engineering Design, chapter 18, pages 463–483. Pitman / Morgan Kaufmann Publ. Inc., November 1989.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. H. Bond. A normative model of collaboration in organizations. In Proc. of 1990 Workshop on DAI, Bandera, Texas, October 1990.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. H. Bond and L. Gasser. An analysis of problems and research in distributed artificial intelligence. In Readings in DAI. Morgan Kaufman Publ., 1988.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Breuker, B. Wielinga, M. van Someren, R. de Hoog, G. Schreiber, P. de Greef, B. Bredeweg, J. Wielemaker, and J.-P. Billault. Model Driven Knowledge Acquisition: Interpretation Models, 1987. Deliverable A1, Esprit Proj. 1098, Memo 87.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. Burmeister and K. Sundermeyer. Cooperative problem-solving guided by intentions and perception. In Werner and Demazeau, editors, Decentralized AI, 3, pages 77–92. Els. Sc. Publ., June 1992.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    B. Chandrasekaran, T. R. Johnson, and J. W. Smith. Task-Structure Analysis for Knowledge Modeling. Comm. of the ACM, 35(9):124–137, September 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    W. J. Clancey. Heuristic classification. Art. Int., 27(3):289–350, Dec. 1985.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Conte, M. Miceli, and C. Castelfranchi. Limits and levels of cooperation: disentangling various types of prosocial interaction. In Demazeau and Muller, editors, Decentralized AI, 2, pages 147–157. Els. Sc. Publ. B.V., 1991.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. de Greef and J. Breuker. Analysing system-user cooperation. Knowledge Acquisition, 4:89–108, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Dieng. Relations linking Cooperating Agents. In Demazeau and Muller, editors, Decentralized AI, 2, pages 51–69. Els. Sc. Publ. B.V., 1991.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Dieng, O. Corby, and S. Labidi. Expertise conflicts in knowledge acquisition. In Proc. of the 8th KAW, vol. 2, pages 23.1–23.19, Banff, Canada, 1994.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Dieng, A. Giboin, P.-A. Tourtier, and O. Corby. Knowledge Acquisition for Explainable, Multi-Expert Knowledge-Based Design Systems. In Wetter & al editors, Current Developments in Knowledge Acquisition: EKAW-92, pages 298–317, Berlin/Heidelberg, May 1992. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Dieng and P.A. Tourtier. A Composite System for Knowledge Acquisition and User Assistance. In Proc. of AAAI Spring Symposium on Design of Composite Systems, pages 1–5, Stanford, CA, March 1991.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. Dieng and B. Trousse. 3DKAT, a Dependency-Driven Dynamic-Knowledge Acquisition Tool. In Proc. of the 3rd Int. Symp. on Knowledge Engineering, pages 85–93, Madrid, Spain, October 1988.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    E. Doerry, S. Fickas, R. Helm, and M.S. Feather. A Model for Composite System Design. In Proc. of AAAI Spring Symposium on Design of Composite Systems, pages 6–10, Stanford, CA, March 1991.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Easterbrook. Handling conflict between domain descriptions with computer-supported negotiation. Knowledge Acquisition, 3(3):255–289, September 1991.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. M. Easterbrook. Distributed Knowledge Acquisition as a Model for Requirements Elicitation. In Proc. of the 3rd EKAW, pages 530–543, Paris, July 1989.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    C. Ferraris. Acquisition des connaissances et raisonnement dans un univers multiagents: application à la prise de décision en génie civil urbain, Février 1992. Thèse de Doctorat en Informatique, Université de Nancy I.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    B. R. Gaines and M. L. G. Shaw. Comparing the Conceptual Systems of Experts. In Proc. of the 9th IJCAI (IJCAI-89), pages 633–638, Detroit, 1989.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    L. Gasser. Boundaries, Identity and Aggregation: Plurality Issues in Multi-Agent Systems. In Werner and Demazeau, editors, Decentralized AI, 3, pages 199–213. Els. Sc. Publ., June 1992.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. Klein. Detecting and resolving conflicts among cooperating human and machine-based design agents. The Int. Journ. for AI in Engin., 7:93–104, 1992.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    H. Mintzberg, editor. The Structuring of Organizations. Prentice Hall Inc., 1979.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. Y. C. Pan and J. M. Tenebaum. An Intelligent Agent Framework for Enterprise Integration. In Proc. of AAAI Spring Symposium on Design of Composite Systems, pages 69–96, Stanford University, CA, March 1991.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    A. S. Rao, M. P. Georgeff, and E. A. Sonenberg. Social Plans: a Preliminary Report. In Werner and Demazeau, editors, Decentralized AI, 3, pages 57–76. Els. Sc. Publ., June 1992.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    M. L. G. Shaw and B. R. Gaines. A methodology for recognizing conflict, correspondence, consensus and contrast in a knowledge acquisition system. Knowledge Acquisition, 1(4):341–363, December 1989.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    M. L. G. Shaw and J. B. Woodward. Validation in a knowledge support system: construing consistency with multiple experts. International Journal of Manmachine Studies, 29:329–350,1988.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    S. Spirgi and D. Wenger. Generic techniques in EMA: A model-based approach for Knowledge Acquisition. In Proc. of the 5th EKAW, Crieff, UK, May 1991.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    L. Steels. COMMET: a componential methodology for knowledge engineering. 1991. Esprit Project CONSTRUCT DWP/2/3/4.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    E. Werner. Social Intentions. In ECAI-88, pages 719–723, Munich, 1988.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    E. Werner. The design of multi-agent systems. In Werner and Demazeau, editors, Decentralized AI, 3. Els. Sc. Publ., June 1992.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    B. J. Wielinga, A. T. Schreiber, and J. A. Breuker. KADS: a modelling approach to knowledge engineering. Knowledge Acquisition, 4:5–53, 1992.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    E. Yu. Organization Modelling and Composite Systems. In Proc. of AAAI Spring Symposium on Design of Composite Systems, pages 122–126, Stanford University, CA, March 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ACACIA ProjectINRIASophia-Antipolis CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations