Advertisement

Beyond the knowledge level: Descriptions of rational behavior for sharing and reuse

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

Abstract

The currently dominant approach to the sharing and reuse of knowledge strives to develop ontologies, with clearly constrained interpretations. The idea of ontological commitments is based on the knowledge level perspective. Several shortcomings of the knowledge level have been identified (Clancey, 1991). Pursuing Clancey's argument, if KBS are to be situated in ever changing environments, their purposes and significance will change over time and they have to be redescribed accordingly. The behavior descriptions proposed in this paper emphasize coherent and consistent descriptions in some given context, rather than predicting performance from knowledge and goals. When systems are embedded into larger contexts, their behavior is redescribed so that the additional significance is shown. Behavior level descriptions thus provide the flexibility for conceptual changes in a knowledge-based system. We demonstrate how behavior descriptions can be used for documenting KBS and present an example of the documentation of a KBS for elevator configuration.

Keywords

Knowledge Sharing Conceptual Change Knowledge Level Procedural Memory Knowledge Component 
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. Anderson, J.R. (1983) The architecture of cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1983Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J.R. (1990) The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum, 1990Google Scholar
  3. Boley, H. (1993) Towards evolvable knowledge representation for industrial applications, in Hinkelmann, K. and Laux, A. (eds) DFKI Workshop on Knowledge Representation Techniques, D-93-11, DFKI, July 1993 Google Scholar
  4. Bourne, L.E. Jr. (1969) Concept learning and thought: Behavior not process, in ed. Voss, J. Approaches to thought. Columbus OH: Merrill: 167–195.Google Scholar
  5. Bourne, L.E., Jr., Ekstrand, B.R. and Dominowski, R. L. (1971) The psychology of thinking. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1971.Google Scholar
  6. Breuker, J. and Wielinga, B. (1989) Models of expertise in knowledge acquisition. In Guida, G. Tasso, C. (Eds.), Topics in expert system design, methodologies and tools Amsterdam, Netherlands: North Holland: 265–295 Google Scholar
  7. Chase, W.G. and Simon, H.A. (1973) Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4: 55–81. Google Scholar
  8. Clancey, W.J. (1985) Heuristic classification. Artificial Intelligence 27 (1985): 289–350 Google Scholar
  9. Clancey, W.J. (1989) The frame-of-reference problem in cognitive modelling. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum: 107–114 Google Scholar
  10. Clancey, W. J. (1991) The frame of reference problem, in ed. VanLehn, K. Architectures for intelligence. Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey, 1991.: 357–423 Google Scholar
  11. Dallemagne, G. Klinker, G. Marques, D. McDermott, J. and Tung, D. (1992) Making application programming more worthwhile, in Schmalhofer, F. Strube, G. and Wetter, T. (eds) Contemporary knowledge engineering. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1992: 6–22 Google Scholar
  12. Dietterich, T.G. (1986) Learning at the knowledge level. Machine Learning 1: 287–316 1986 Google Scholar
  13. Fischer, G. and Girgensohn, A. (1990) End-User Modifiability in Design Environments, Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI'90, Conference Proceedings (Seattle, WA) ACM, New York (April 1990): 183–191.Google Scholar
  14. Gruber, T. (1993) Towards principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing, ftp server Stanford Google Scholar
  15. Guha, R. V. and Lenat, D.B. (1990) CYC: A mid-term report. AI Magazine 11(3):32–59 Google Scholar
  16. Hinkelmann, K. Meyer, M. and Schmalhofer, F. (1994) Knowledge-base evolution for product and production planning. AICOM Vol. 7 Nr. 2: 98–113 Google Scholar
  17. Keil, F.C. (1993) Conceptual change and other varieties of cognitive development: Some distinctions in the emergence of biological thought. Proceedings of the Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Boulder, Co. 1993, Lawrence Erlbaum, NJ:4 Google Scholar
  18. Kühn, O. (1993) Knowledge sharing and knowledge evolution. Proceedings IJCAI 1993 Workshop on knowledge sharing and information exchange.Google Scholar
  19. Maes, P. (1993) Behavior-Based Artificial Intelligence. in Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, June 18–21, 1993:74–83. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Miller, G.A. (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63:81–97.Google Scholar
  21. Musen, M. A. (1992) Dimensions of knowledge sharing and reuse. Computers and biomedical research 25, 435–467 (1992)Google Scholar
  22. Neches, R. Fikes, R. Finin, T. Gruber, T. Patil, R. Senator, T. and Swartout, W.R. (1991) Enabling technology for knowledge sharing AI Magazine Fall 1991:36–56 Google Scholar
  23. Newell, A. (1969) Discussion of Professor Bourne s Paper: Thoughts on the concept of process. in ed. Voss, J. Approaches to thought. Columbus OH: Merrill: 196–210.Google Scholar
  24. Newell, A. (1982) The knowledge level. AI 18 (1982):87–127 Google Scholar
  25. Newell, A. (1990) Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Newell, A. (1992) Precis of Unified Theories of Cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15: 425–437.Google Scholar
  27. Norman, D.A. and Bobrow, D.G. (1975) On data limited and resource limited processes. Cognitive Psychology, 7: 44–64 Google Scholar
  28. Pylyshyn, Z. (1984) Computation and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Ram, A. (1993) Creative conceptual change. Proceedings of the Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Boulder, Co. 1993, Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey: 17–26 Google Scholar
  30. Ryle, G. (1949) The concept of mind. Harmondsworth: Penguin Google Scholar
  31. Schmalhofer, F. and Thoben, J. (1992) The model-based construction of a case-oriented expert system. AICOM Vol.5 Nr.1: 3–18 Google Scholar
  32. Schreiber, G., Akkermans, H. and Wielinga, B. (1990) On problems with the knowledge level perspective, in. Boose, J. Gainers, B.R. (eds) Proceedings of the 5th Banff Knowledge-bases systems workshop:30-1–30-14.Google Scholar
  33. Simon, H.A. (1974) How big is a chunk? Science, 1974, 183: 482–488 Google Scholar
  34. Smith, J.W. and Johnson, T.R. (1993) A stratified approach to specifying, designing, and building knowledge systems. IEEE Expert, 8(3): 15–25 Google Scholar
  35. Squire, L.R. and Slater, P.C. (1975) Forgetting in very long-term memory as assessed by an improved questionnaire technique. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1975, 1: 21–34 Google Scholar
  36. Sticklen, J. (1989) Problem solving architecture at the knowledge level. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  37. Swartout, W. and Balzer, R. (1982) On the inevitable intertwining of specification and implementation. Communications of the ACM, 25, 7: 438–440.Google Scholar
  38. Swartout, W.R. Neches, R. and Patil, R. (1993) Knowledge sharing: Prospects and challenges. Proceedings of the International conference on building and sharing of very large-scale knowledge bases 1993:95–102Google Scholar
  39. Tulving, E. (1975) Ecphoric processes in recall and cognition. in Brown, J. (ed) Recall and recognition. Wiley, 1975 Google Scholar
  40. Winograd, T. (1976) Frame representations and the declarative-procedural controversy. in Bobrow, D.G. Collins, A. (eds) Representation and Understanding. New York: Academic Press: 185–210.Google Scholar
  41. Yost, G. (1992) Configuring elevator systems. AI Research Group, DEC, Marlboro, MA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.German Research Center for Artificial IntelligenceKaiserslauternGermany
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of ColoradoBoulder

Personalised recommendations