Advertisement

Designing Nutritional Menus Using Case-Based and Rule-Based Reasoning

  • Cynthia R. Marling
  • Leon S. Sterling

Abstract

Case-based reasoning (CBR) and rule-based reasoning (RBR) are two paradigms for building knowledge-based systems. They represent both distinct approaches to knowledge-based systems development and distinct cognitive models of human problem solving. They are usually viewed as competing, rather than complementary, paradigms. However, our investigation shows that in combination, they can provide both a stronger approach to knowledge-based systems development and a broader cognitive model. The domain of our investigation is the design of nutritious, yet appetizing, menus. Both logic and experience play roles in this domain. Our approach is to construct two expert systems, one case-based and one rule-based, to perform the same task. We compare and contrast our two systems, to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each.

Keywords

Meal Pattern American Dietetic Association Common Sense Knowledge Lunch Meal Menu Planning 
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. American Dietetic Association and the U.S. Department of Agriculture: 1982, FOOD 2, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  2. American Heart Association: 1992, The Hearty School Lunch Menus, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
  3. Ashley, K. D. and Rissland, E. L.: 1988, A case-based approach to modeling legal expertise, IEEE Expert, 3(3), 70–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balintfy, J. L.: 1964, Menu planning by computer, Communications of the ACM, 7(4), 255–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dollahite, J., Franklin, D. and McNew, R.: 1995, Problems encountered in meeting the recommended dietary allowances for menus designed according to the dietary guidelines for Americans, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 95(3), 341–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eckstein, E. F.: 1967, Menu planning by computer: The random approach, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 51,529–533.Google Scholar
  7. Eckstein, E. F: 1978, Menu Planning, 2nd edn, AVI Pub., Westport, CT.Google Scholar
  8. Food and Nutrition Board: 1989, Recommended Dietary Allowances, 10th edn, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  9. Galotra, V., Ramachandran, S., Singh, H. and Bajaj, K. K.: 1991, Nutrition diet programme — An expert system, Unpublished Report, Artificial Intelligence Division, National Informatics Centre, New Delhi, India.Google Scholar
  10. Ganeshan, K. and Farmer, J.: 1995, Menu planning system for a large catering corporation, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Practical Application of Prolog, Paris, France, pp. 262–265.Google Scholar
  11. Golding, A. R.: 1991, Pronouncing Names by a Combination of Case-Based and Rule-Based Reasoning, PhD Dissertation, Stanford University, CA.Google Scholar
  12. Hammond, K. J.: 1989, Case-Based Planning: Viewing Planning as a Memory Task, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  13. Hinrichs, T. R.: 1992, Problem Solving in Open Worlds: A Case Study in Design, Lawrence Erl-baum, Northvale, NJ.Google Scholar
  14. Jackson, P.: 1990, Introduction to Expert Systems, 2nd edn, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  15. Kettler, B. P., Hendler, J. A., Andersen, W A. and Evett, M. P.: 1994, Massively parallel support for case-based planning, IEEE Expert, 9(1), 8–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kolodner, J.: 1993, Case-Based Reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.Google Scholar
  17. Kovacic, K. J.: 1995, Using Common Sense Knowledge for Computer Menu Planning, PhD Dissertation, Department of Computer Engineering and Science, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.Google Scholar
  18. Kovacic, K., Sterling, L., Petot, G., Ernst, G. and Yang, N.: 1992, Towards an intelligent nutrition manager, Proceedings of the ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Computer Applications, ACM Press, New York, NY, pp. 1293–1296.Google Scholar
  19. Lenat, D. and Guha, R. V.: 1990, Building Large Knowledge-Base Systems: Representation and Inference in the Cyc Project, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  20. Rich, E. and Knight, K.: 1991, Artificial Intelligence, 2nd edn, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  21. Rissland, E. L. and Skalak, D. B.: 1991, CABARET: Rule interpretation in a hybrid architecture, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 839–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Riesbeck, C. K. and Schank, R. C.: 1989, Inside Case-Based Reasoning, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  23. Shugart, G. and Molt, M.: 1989, Food for Fifty, 8th edn, Macmillan, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  24. Spears, M. C.: 1995, Foodservice Organizations: A Managerial and Systems Approach, 3rd edn, Macmillan, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  25. Sycara, K., Guttal, R., König, J., Navasimhan, S. and Navinchandra, D.: 1992, CADET: A case-based synthesis tool for engineering design, International Journal of Expert Systems, 4(2).Google Scholar
  26. U.S. Department of Agriculture: 1990, Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 3rd. edn, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  27. Yang, N.: 1989, An Expert System on Menu Planning, M.S. Thesis, Department of Computer Engineering and Science, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cynthia R. Marling
    • 1
  • Leon S. Sterling
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Engineering and ScienceCase Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations