Advertisement

A systematic approach to the functionality of problem-solving methods

Long Papers
  • 167 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1319)

Abstract

In this paper, we define a formalization of goals based on set algebra and we show how structural properties of domain relations and goals can be used to select problem solving methods in a library indexed by methods functionality. Our work is motivated by the need to reuse model components for knowledge engineering. We show how to construct a compound method from a goal specification and an abstract description of the domain knowledge. Finally we show that by modifying the required functionality, the same domain knowledge can be used for a different goal.

Keywords

Boolean Function Domain Knowledge Domain Ontology Medical Domain Domain Relation 
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. 1.
    M. Aben. Formally specifying re-usable knowledge model components. Knowledge Acquisition, 5:119–141, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    V. R. Benjamins. Problem Solving Methods for Diagnosis. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 1993.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    V. R. Benjamins, A. Abu-Hanna, and W. N. H. Jansweijer. Suitability criteria for model based diagnostic methods. In In Proceedings of ECAI-workshop on Model Based Reasoning, Vienna, 1992. SKBS/A2/92-13.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Beys, R. Benjamins, and G. van Heijst. Task-neutrality: An essential factor for reuse? In The Open University, editor, Proc. of the 7th KEML Workshop, Milton Keynes, UK, January 1997. Knowledge Media Institute.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. A. Breuker and W. Van de Velde, editors. The CommonKADS Library for Expertise Modelling. IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. Chandrasekaran. Limitations of the generic task toolkit idea. proposal for an architecture that integrates different types of problem solving. In L. Steels and J. McDermott, editors, Expert System Foundations. 1990.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    L. Eshelman. MOLE: A knowledge-acquisition tool for cover-and-differentiate systems. In S. Marcus, editor, Automating Knowledge Acquisition for Expert Systems, pages 37–80. Kluwer, Boston, 1988.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Fensel, J. Angele, and D. Landes. Knowledge representation and acquisition language (KARL). In Proceedings 11th International workshop on expert systems and their applications (Volume: Tools and Techniques), pages 821–833, Avignon, France, May 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Fensel, A. Schönegge, R. Groenboom, and B. Wielinga. Specification and verification of knowledge-based systems. In Proc. Validation and Verification workshop at ECAI-96, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    T. R. Gruber. A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5:199–220, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    F. Hayes-Roth, D. A. Waterman, and D. B. Lenat. Building Expert Systems. Addison-Wesley, New York, 1983.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Klinker, C. Bhola, G. Dallemagne, D. Marques, and J. McDermott. Usable and reusable programming constructs. Knowledge Acquisition, 3:117–136, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. McDermott. Preliminary steps towards a taxonomy of problem-solving methods. In S. Marcus, editor, Automating Knowledge Acquisition for Expert Systems, pages 225–255. Kluwer, Boston, 1988.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. McDermott. The world would be a better place if non-programmers could program. Machine Learning, 4(3/4):337–338, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Th. Schreiber, B. J. Wielinga, and J. M. Akkermans. Differentiating problem solving methods. In Th. Wetter, K-D. Althoff, J. Boose, B. Gaines, M. Linster, and F. Schmalhofer, editors, Current Developments in Knowledge Acquisition — EKAW'92, pages 95–111, Berlin, Germany, 1992. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    F. van Harmelen, J. M. Akkermans, J. R. Balder, A. Th. Schreiber, and B. J. Wielinga. Formal specifications of knowledge models. ESPRIT Basic Research Action P3178 REFLECT, Deliverable R.1 RFL/ECN/I.4/1, Netherlands Energy Research Foundation ECN, August 1990. Available from: University of Amsterdam, Social Science Informatics, Roetersstraat 15, NL-1018 WB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    F. van Harmelen and J. R. Balder. (ML)2: a formal language for KADS models of expertise. Knowledge Acquisition, 4(1), 1992. Special issue: ‘The KADS approach to knowledge engineering', reprinted in KADS: A Principled Approach to Knowledge-Based System Development, 1993, Schreiber, A. Th. et al. (eds.).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    G. van Heijst, S. Falasconi, A. Abu-Hanna, A. Th. Schreiber, and M. Stefanelli. A case study in ontology library construction. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 7(5):227–255, June 1995.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SWIUniversity of AmsterdamWB AmsterdamNL

Personalised recommendations