Advertisement

Declarative functionality descriptions of interactive reasoning modules

  • Jan Treur
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 567)

Abstract

In this paper a semantical framework is developed that provides a logical description of the functionality of an interactive reasoning module. In particular it can be made more transparent by this framework whether or not the conclusions that may be drawn by a reasoning module fit to the situation that is concerned (soundness and completeness). It will be established that, considered from the viewpoint of functionality, the knowledge in a reasoning module always can be normalized to knowledge in rule format. This shows that the rule format essentially is expressive enough to specify the functionality of a reasoning module. This result gives a justification for the choice that has been made in our framework for design and specification of interacting reasoning modules, DESIRE.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    S. Blamey, Partial Logic, in: D. Gabbay, F. Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. III, pp.1–70, Reidel, 1986.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    B.G. Buchanan, E.H. Shortliffe, Rule-based expert systems, Addison-Wesley, 1985Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    B. Chandrasckaran, Generic tasks in knowledge-based reasoning: high level building blocks for expert system design, IEEE Expert, Fall 1986Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    C.C. Chang, H.J. Keisler, Model theory, North Holland, 1973Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    C.G. Hempel, Philosophy of Science, Prentice-Hall, Englewoods Cliffs, 1966Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    W. Kowalczyk, J. Treur, On the use of a formalized generic task model in knowledge acquisition, Proc. European Knowledge Acquisition Workshop, EKAW-90, pp. 198–221,1990Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    P.H.G. van Langen, J. Treur, Representing world situations and information states by many-sorted partial models, Report PE8904, University of Amsterdam, Expert Systems Section, 1989Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    T. Langholm, Partiality, Truth and Persistance, CSLI Lecture Notes No. 15, Stanford University, Stanford, 1988.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    M. Suwa, A. Garlisle Scott, E.H. Shortliffe, Completeness and consistency in a rule-based system, in: B.G. Buchanan, E.H. Shortliffe, Rule-based expert systems, pp. 159–170,1985Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Y.H. Tan, J. Treur, A bimodular approach to nonmonotonic reasoning, Proc. World Congress on Fundamentals in AI, WOCFAI-91, pp. 461–475, 1991Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    J. Treur, Completeness and definability in diagnostic expert systems, Proc. European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI-88, pp. 619–624,1988Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    J. Treur, Heuristic reasoning and relative incompleteness, Int. Journal of Approximate Reasoning, to appear, 1992Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    J. Treur, On the use of reflection principles in modelling complex reasoning, Int. Journal of Intelligent Systems 6 (1991), pp. 277–294Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    J. Treur, Declarative functionality descriptions of interactive reasoning modules, Report IR-237, Vrije Universiteit, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, 1990Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    J. Treur, Interaction types and chemistry of generic task models, Proc. European Knowledge Acquisition Workshop, EKAW-91, 1991Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    R.W. Weyhrauch, Prolegomena to a theory of mechanized formal reasoning, Artificial Intelligence 13 (1980), pp. 133–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Treur
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence GroupVrije Universiteit AmsterdamHV AmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations