Abstraction and Inference Mechanisms for Knowledge Representation
- 64 Downloads
The use of the clausal institution for structuring and using knowledge is advocated on the basis that it leads to the integration of the logical, structural and procedural knowledge representation paradigms. The knowledge base is identified with a structured theory in this institution. Every knowledge representation approach is defined as a collection of parameterized theories (abstractions) which can be used for building knowledge bases, as well as new abstractions. The resulting knowledge base has an explicit structure complying with the chosen knowledge representation approach and can be accessed using clausal logic general purpose inference mechanisms. Moreover, the procedural semantics of clausal logic provides direct means to support the procedural viewpoint. Within the proposed framework, effective tools are introduced for the modular construction of structured clausal knowledge bases.
KeywordsTheory Mapping Knowledge Representation Entity Type Argument Theory Knowledge Representation Language
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- [BG80]Burstall, R., and J. Goguen, “The Semantics of Clear: A Specification Language”, in D. Bjorner (ed.), Abstract Software Specifications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1980.Google Scholar
- [BG81]Burstall, R., and J. Goguen, “An Informal Introduction to the Semantics of Clear”, in R. Boyer and J. Moore (eds.), The Correctness Problem in Computer Science, Academic Press, London, 1981.Google Scholar
- [BGL85]Brachman, R., V. Gilbert, and H. Levesque, “An Essential Hybrid Reasoning System: Knowledge and Symbol Level Account of Krypton”, Proc. 1985 AAAI Conference, 1985.Google Scholar
- [CF86]Carapusa, R., and F. Fiaderro, “Varying Representation Schemata vs Fact Updating in KB Management”, in R. Meersman and A. Sernadas (eds.), Knowledge and Data (DS-2), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1987.Google Scholar
- [CRS85]Coelho, H., A. Rodrigues, and A. Sernadas, “Towards Knowledge-Based Infolog Specifications”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 1, No.Google Scholar
- [GB84]Goguen, J., and R. Burstall, “Introducing Institutions”, in E. Clarke and D. Kozen (eds.), Logics of Programs, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 164, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1984.Google Scholar
- [MB85]Mylopoulous, J., and M.L. Brodie, “AI and Databases: Semantics vs Computational Theories of Information”, in G. Ariav and J. Clifford (eds.), New Directions for Database Systems, Ablex Publishing Company, Norwood, NJ, 1985.Google Scholar
- [SS85a]Sernadas, A., and C. Sernadas, “Capturing Knowledge About the Organization Dynamics”, in L. Methlie and R. Sprague (eds.), Knowledge Representation for DSS, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985.Google Scholar
- [SS85b]Sernadas, A., and C. Sernadas, “The Use of E-R Abstractions tor Knowledge Representation”, in P. Chen (ed.), The Entity-Relationship Concept in Knowledge Representation, IEEE, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985.Google Scholar
- [SS86]Sernadas, C., and A. Sernadas, “Conceptual Modelling Abstractibn Mechanisms as Parameterized Theories in Institutions”, in R. Meersman and T. Steel (eds.), Database Semantics, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1986.Google Scholar
- [VILA85]Vilain, M., “The Restricted Language Architecture of a Hybrid Representation System”, Proc. 1985 AAAI Conference, 1985.Google Scholar