Acquisition of conceptual structure in scientific theories

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


This paper details an approach to the acquisition of a specific kind of knowledge that found in causal scientific theories. We are especially concerned with the conceptual structure found in such theories as we assume them to be cognitive objects. The acquisition of this conceptual structure should take into account the structure of the underlying cognitive models. We have developed a software tool that assists in the early acquisition stages of the knowledge-based system (KBS) development cycle.


Scientific Theory Knowledge Acquisition Knowledge Engineer Personal Construct Theory Case Frame 
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. Alberts, B., Bray, D., Lewis, J., Raff, M., Roberts, K. and Watson, J.D. (1989) Molecular Biology of the Cell, Garland, London.Google Scholar
  2. Boose, J.H. and Bradshaw, J.M. (1987) “Expertise transfer and complex problems: using AQUINAS as a knowledge acquisition workbench for knowledge-based systems”, Int. J. Man-Machine Studies, 26, 3–28.Google Scholar
  3. Bratko, I. (1988) “Qualitative modelling for medical diagnosis” in C. Cobelli and L. Mariana (eds.), Modelling and Control in Biomedical Systems, Proc. 1st IFAC Symp., Venice, Italy, 6–8 April 1988, Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  4. Charlet, J., Reynaud, C. and Krivine, J.-P. (1996) “Causal model-based knowledge acquisition tools: discussion of experiments”, Int. J. Human-Computer Studies, 44, 629–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fillmore, C.J. (1968) “The case for case”, in E. Bach and R.T. Harms (eds.) Universals in Linguistic Theory.Google Scholar
  6. Gaines, B.R. and Boose, J.H. (eds.) (1988) Knowledge Acquisition for KnowledgeBased Systems, Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  7. Gerstl, P. and Pribbenow S. (1995) “Midwinters, end games and bodyparts: A classification of part-whole relations”, Int. J. Human-Computer Studies, 43, 865–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Giere, R.N. (1988) Explaining Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  9. Giere, R.N. (ed.) (1992) Cognitive Models of Science, University of Minnesota Press, MI.Google Scholar
  10. Harré, R. (1972) The Philosophies of Science, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  11. Hobbs, J.R. (1995) “Sketch of an ontology underlying the way we talk about the world”, Int. J. Human-Computer Studies, 43, 819–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ironi, L., Stefanelli, M. and Lanzola, G. (1990) “Qualitative models in medical diagnosis”, Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 2, 85–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983) Mental Models, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  14. Jones, D.M. and Paton, R.C. (1994) “The role of verbal and visual metaphors in biological theories”, presented at the Conference on Information-Oriented Approaches to Logic, Language and Computation, June 12–15, St. Mary's College, Moraga, California.Google Scholar
  15. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  16. Matzinger P. (1994) “Tolerance, danger, and the extended family”, Annual Review of Immunology, 12, 991–1045.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. McCauley, R.N. (1987) “The role of theories in a theory of concepts”, in U. Neisser (ed.) Concepts and Conceptual Development, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  18. Minsky, M. (1981) “A framework for representing knowledge”, in J. Haugeland (ed.) Mind Design, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  19. Paton, R.C., Nwana, H.S., Shave, M.J.R. and Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (1994a) “An examination of some metaphorical contexts for biologically motivated computing”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 45, 505–525.Google Scholar
  20. Paton, R.C., Lynch, S., Jones, D.M., Nwana, H.S., Bench-Capon, T.J.M. and Shave, M.J.R. (1994b), “Domain characterisation for knowledge-based systems”, Proceedings ofA.L 94 — Fourteenth International Avignon Conference, 41–54.Google Scholar
  21. Paton, R.C. (1997), “Glue, Verb and Text Metaphors in Biology”, Acta Biotheoretica, 45,1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rieger, C. and Grinberg, M. (1977) “The declarative representation and simulation of causality in physical mechanisms”, Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 77, pp. 250–256 Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  23. Schank, R.C. and Abelson, R. (1977) Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  24. Shaw, M.L.G. and Gaines, B.R. (1983) “A computer aid to knowledge engineering”, Proceedings of BCS Conference on Expert Systems, December, Cambridge, 263–271.Google Scholar
  25. Suppes, P. (1960) Axiomatic Set Theory, Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  26. van Fraassen, B.C. (1980) The Scientific Image, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  27. van Heijst, G., Schreiber, A. Th. and Wielinga, B.J. (1997) “Using explicit ontologies in KBS development”, Int. J. Human-Computer Studies, 46, 183–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Winston, M.E., Chaffin, R. and Herrman, D. (1987) “A taxonomy of part-whole relations”, Cognitive Science, 11, 417–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Woods, W.A. (1975) “What's in a link: foundations for semantic networks”, in D.G. Bobrow and A.M. Collins (eds.) Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science, 35–82, Academic Press, NY.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations