Mining Propositional Knowledge Bases to Discover Multi-level Rules

  • Debbie Richards
  • Usama Malik
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2797)


This paper explores how knowledge in the form of propositions in an expert system can be used as input into data mining. The output is multi-level knowledge which can be used to provide structure, suggest interesting concepts, improve understanding and support querying of the original knowledge. Appropriate algorithms for mining knowledge must take into account the peculiar features of knowledge which distinguish it from data. The most obvious and problematic distinction is that only one of each rule exists. This paper introduces the possible benefits of mining knowledge and describes a technique for reorganizing knowledge and discovering higher-level concepts in the knowledge base. The rules input may have been acquired manually (we describe a simple technique known as Ripple Down Rules for this purpose) or automatically using an existing data mining technique. In either case, once the knowledge exists in propositional form, Formal Concept Analysis is applied to the rules to develop an abstraction hierarchy from which multi-level rules can be extracted. The user is able to explore the knowledge at and across any of the levels of abstraction to provide a much richer picture of the knowledge and understanding of the domain.


Association Rule Concept Lattice Formal Context Formal Concept Analysis Concept Hierarchy 
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.
    Cai, Y., Cerone, N., Han, J.: Attribute-oriented induction in relational databases. In: Knowledge Discovery in Databases. AAAI/MIT Press (1991) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Compton, P., Jansen, R.: A Philosophical Basis for Knowledge Acquisition. Knowledge Acquisition 2, 241–257 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deogun, J., Raghavan, V., Sever, H.: Association Mining and Formal Concept Analysis. In: Proceedings Sixth International Workshop on Rough Sets, Data Mining and Granular Computing, vol. 1, pp. 335–338 (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Edwards, G., Compton, P., Malor, R., Srinivasan, A., Lazarus, L.: PEIRS: a Pathologist Maintained Expert System for the Interpretation of Chemical Pathology Reports. Pathology 25, 27–34 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Edwards, G., Kang, B., Preston, P., Compton, P.: Prudent Expert Systems with Credentials: Managing the expertise of Decision Support Systems. Int. Journal Biomedical Computing 40, 125–132 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fortin, S., Liu, L., Goebel, R.: Multi-Level Association Rule Mining: An Object-Oriented Approach Based on Dynamic Hierarchies, Technical Report TR 96–15, Dept. of Computing Science, University of Alberta (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gaines, B.R.: An Ounce of Knowledge is Worth a Ton of Data: Quantitative Studies of the Trade Off Between Expertise and Data Based on Statistically Well- Founded Empirical Induction. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Machine Learning, pp. 156–159. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1989)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ganter, B.: Composition and Decomposition of Data. In: Bock, H. (ed.) Classification and Related Methods of Data Analysis, pp. 561–566. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1988)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ganter, B., Wille, R.: Conceptual Scaling. In: Roberts, F. (ed.) Applications of Combinatorics and Graph Theory to the Biological Sciences, pp. 139–167. Springer, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ganter, B., Wille, R.: Formal Concept Analysis: Mathematical Foundations. Springer, Berlin (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Graaf, d.J.M., Kosters, W.A., Witteman, J.J.: Interesting Association Rules in Multiple Taxonomies. In: Proceedings of the 12th Belgium-Netherlands Artificial Intelligence Conference (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gruber, T.R.: Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing Knowledge Systems Laboratory, Stanford University (1993)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kang, B., Compton, P., Preston, P.: Multiple Classification Ripple Down Rules: Evaluation and Possibilities. In: Proc. 9th Banff Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge Based Systems W’shop Banff., February 26-March 3, vol. 1, pp. 17.1–17.20 (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kietz, J.-U., Maedche, A., Volz, R.: A Method for Semi-Automatic Ontology Acquisition from a Corporate Intranet. In: WS ”Ontologies and Text”, co-located with EKAW 2000, Juan-les-Pins, French Riviera (October 2–6, 2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li, X.: What’s so bad about Rule-Based Programming? IEEE Software, 103–105 (September 1991)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lindig, C.: Fast Concept Analysis. In: Stumme, G. (ed.) Working with Conceptual Structures Contributions to ICCS 2000, pp. 152–161. Shaker-Verlag, Aachen (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mansuri, Y., Kim, J.G., Compton, P., Sammut, C.: A comparison of a manual knowledge acquisition method and an inductive learning method. In: Australian Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge Based Systems, Pokolbin, pp. 114–132 (1991)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Omelayenko, B.: Learning of Ontologies for the Web: the Analysis of Existent Approaches. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Web Dynamics, held in conj. with the 8th International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT 2001), London, UK (January 3, 2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pasquier, N.: Mining Association Rules using Formal Concept Analysis. In: Stumme, G. (ed.) Working with Conceptual Structures, Proceedings of ICCS 2000, pp. 259–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pawlak, Z.: Rough Sets: Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Data. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1991)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Richards, D.: Using AI to Resolve the Republican Debate. In: Slaney, J. (ed.) Poster Proceedings of Eleventh Australian Joint Artificial Intelligence Conf. AI 1998, Griffith Uni., Nathan Campus, Brisbane, Australia, July 13–17, pp. 121–133 (1998)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Richards, D.: Reconciling Conflicting Sources of Expertise: A Framework and Illustration. In: Compton, P., Hoffmann, A., Motoda, H., Yamaguchi, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th Pacific Knowledge Acquisition Workshop, Sydney, December 11– 13, pp. 275–296 (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Richards, D., Chellen, V., Compton, C.: The Reuse of Ripple Down Rule Knowledge Bases: Using Machine Learning to Remove Repetition. In: Compton, P., Mizoguchi, R., Motoda, H., Menzies, T. (eds.) Proceedings of Pacific Knowledge AcquisitionWorkshop PKAW 1996, Coogee, Australia, October 23–25, pp. 293–312 (1996)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Richards, D., Compton, P.: Combining Formal Concept Analysis and Ripple Down Rules to Support the Reuse of Knowledge. In: Proceedings Software Engineering Knowledge Engineering SEKE 1997, Madrid, June 18–20, pp. 177–184 (1997)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shen, W., Ong, K., Mitbander, B., Zaniolo, C.: Metaqueries for Data Mining. In: Fayad, U. (ed.) Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. AAAI/MIT Press (1995)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Singh, L., Scheuermann, P., Chen, B.: Generating Association Rules from SemiStructured Documents Using an Extended Concept Hierarchy. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, pp. 193–200 (1997)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Suryanto, H., Compton, P.: Learning Classification Taxonomies from a Classification Knowledge Based System. In: Staab, S., Maedche, A., Nedellec, C., Wiemer-Hastings, P. (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Ontology Learning, 14th Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’00), Berlin, August 20–25 (2000)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Suryanto, H., Richards, D., Compton, P.: The Automatic Compression of Multiple Classification Ripple Down Rules. In: The Third International Conference on Knowledge Based Intelligent Information Engineering Systems (KES 1999), Adelaide (August 31-September 1, 1999)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Taylor, M., Stoffel, K., Hendler, J.: Ontology-based Induction of High Level Classification Rules. In: SIGMOD Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery workshop Proceedings, Tuscon, Arizona (1997)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Walker, A.: On Retrieval from a Small Version of a Large Database. In: VLDB Conference Proceedings (1980)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wille, R.: Restructuring Lattice Theory: An Approach Based on Hierarchies of Concepts. In: Rival, I. (ed.) Ordered Sets, pp. 445–470. Reidel, Dordrecht (1982)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wille, R.: Knowledge Acquisition by Methods of Formal Concept Analysis. In: Diday, E. (ed.) Data Analysis, Learning Symbolic and Numeric Knowledge, pp. 365–380. Nova Science Pub., New York (1989)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wille, R.: Concept Lattices and Conceptual Knowledge Systems. Computers Math. Applic. (23), 6–9, 493–515 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Debbie Richards
    • 1
  • Usama Malik
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computing, Centre for Language Technology, Division of Information and Communication SciencesMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations