Uncovering the conceptual models in ripple down rules

  • Debbie Richards
  • Paul Compton
Knowledge Modeling
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1257)

Abstract

The need for analysis and modeling of knowledge has been espoused by many researchers as a prerequisite to building knowledge based systems (KBS). This approach has done little to alleviate the knowledge acquisition (KA) bottleneck or the maintenance problems associated with large KBS. For actual KA and maintenance we prefer to use a technique, known as ripple down rules (RDR) that is simple, yet reliable, and later see what models can be produced from the knowledge for the purpose of reuse. Tools based on Formal Concept Analysis have been added to RDR to uncover and explore the underlying conceptual structures.

Keywords

Knowledge Acquisition Formal Concept Concept Lattice Formal Context Formal Concept Analysis 
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]
    Burmeister, P. (1996) Formal Concept Analysis with Conlmp: Introduction to the Basic Features A translation of ConImp-Ein Programm zur Formalen Begriffanalyse In G.Stumme, R.Wille (eds.) Begriffliche Wissenerarbeitung:Methoden und Anwendungen, Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Chandrasekaran, B. (1986) Generic Tasks in Knowledge-Based Reasoning: High Level Building Blocks for Expert System Design IEEE Expert pp: 23–30. Fall 1986.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Clancey, W.J., (1985) Heuristic Classification Artificial Intelligence, 1985. 27: p. 289–350.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Clancey, W.J., (1993) Situated Action: A Neurological Interpretation Response to Vera and Simon Cognitive Science, 17: pp. 87–116.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Compton, P. and Jansen, R., (1990) A Philosophical Basis for Knowledge Acquisition. Knowledge Acquisition 2:2Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Compton, P., Edwards, G., Kang, B., Lazarus, L., Malor, R., Menziès, T., Preston, P., Srinivasan, A. and Sammut, C. (1991) Ripple Down Rules: Possibilities and Limitations 6th Banff AAAI Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge Based Systems Workshop, Banff (1991) 6.1–6.18.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Compton, P., Edwards, G., Kang, B., Lazarus, L., Malor, R., Preston, P., and Srinivasan, A. (1992). Ripple down rales: Turning knowledge acquisition into knowledge maintainance Artificial knowledge in Medicine 4 pp:463–475.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Compton, P., Preston, P. and Kang, B. (1995) The Use of Simulated Experts in Evaluating Knowledge Acquisition, Proceedings 9th Banff Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge Based Systems Workshop Banff. Feb 26–March 3 1995.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Eades, P. (1996) Graph Drawing Methods Conceptual Structures: Knowledge Representation as Interlingua (Eds. P.Eklund, G. Ellis and G. Mann) pp:40–49, Springer.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Edwards, G., Compton, P., Malor, R., Srinivasan, A. and Lazarus, L. (1993) PEIRS: a Pathologist Maintained Expert System for the Interpretation of Chemical Pathology Reports Pathology 25: 27–34.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Gaines, B. R. and Shaw, M.L.G. (1989) Comparing the Conceptual Systems of Experts The 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence:633–638.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Gaines, B. R. and Shaw, M.L.G. (1995) Collaboration through Concept Maps CSCL'95 Proceedings September 1995.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Ganter, B. (1988) Composition and Decomposition of Data In Classification and Related Methods of Data Analysis (Ed. H. Bock) pp:561–566, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Ganter, B. and Wille, R. (1989) Conceptual Scaling In Applications of Combinatorics and Graph Theory to the Biological Sciences (Ed. F. Roberts) pp:139–167, Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Hochman, Z., Compton, P., Blumenthal, M. and Preston, P. (1996) Ripple-down rules: a potential tool for documenting agricultural knowledge as it emerges. p313–316. In Proc. 8th Aust. Agronomy Conf., Toowoomba 1996.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Kang, B., Compton, P. and Preston, P. (1995) Multiple Classification Ripple Down Rules: Evaluation and Possibilities Proceedings 9th Banff Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge Based Systems Workshop Banff. Feb 26–March 3 1995, Vol 1: 17.1–17.20.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Kelly, G.A., (1955) The Psychology of Personal Constructs New York, Norton.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Lee, M. and Compton, P. (1995) From Heuristic Knowledge to Causal Explanations Proc. of Eighth Aust. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence AI'95, Ed X. Yao, 13–17 November 1995, Canberra, World Scientific, pp:83–90.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    McDermott, J. (1988) Preliminary Steps Toward a Taxonomy of Problem-Solving Methods Automating Knowledge Acquisition for Expert Systems Marcus, S (ed.) Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp: 225–256.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Menzies, T.J. and Compton, P. (1995) The (Extensive) Implications of Evaluation on theDevelopment of Knowledge-Based Systems in Proceedings 9th Banff Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge Based Systems Workshop Banff. Feb 26–March 3 1995.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Newell, A. (1982) The Knowledge Level Artificial Intelligence 18:87–127.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Patil, R. S., Fikes, R. E., Patel-Schneider, P. F., McKay, D., Finin, T., Gruber, T. R. and Neches, R., (1992) The DARPA Knowledge Sharing Effort: Progress Report In C. Rich, B. Nebel and Swartout, W., Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Third International Conference Cambridge, MA, Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Pawlak, Zdzislaw (1982) Rough Sets International Journal of Information and Computer Sciences, 11, pp:341–356.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Puerta, A. R, Egar, J.W., Tu, S.W. and Musen, M.A. (1992) A Mulitple Method Knowledge Acquisition Shell for Automatic Generation of Knowledge Acquisition Tools Knowledge Acquisition 4(2).Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Richards, D., Gambetta, W. and Compton, P. (1996) Using Rough Set Theory to Verify Production Rules and Support Reuse Proceedings of the Verification, Validation and Refinement of KBS Workshop, PRICAI'96 26–30 August 1996, Cairns, Australia, Griffith University.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Richards, D and Compton, P (1996) Building Knowledge Based Systems that Match the Decision Situation Using Ripple Down Rules, Intelligent Decision Support '96 9th Sept, 1996, Monash University.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Richards, D., Chellen, V. and Compton, P (1996) The Reuse of Ripple Down Rule Knowledge Bases: Using Machine Learning to Remove Repetition Proceedings of Pacific Knowledge Acquisition Workshop PKAW'96, October 23–25 1996, Coogee, Australia.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Scheffer, T. (1996) Algebraic Foundation and Improved Methods of Induction of Ripple Down Rules Proceedings of Pacific Knowledge Acquisition Workshop PKAW'96, October 23–25 1996, Coogee, Australia.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Schon, D.A. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practioner San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Schreiber, G., Weilinga, B. and Breuker (eds) (1993) KADS: A Principles Approach to Knowledge-Based System Development Knowledge-Based Systems London, England, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    Spangenberg, N and Wolff, K.E. (1988) Conceptual Grid Evaluation In H.H. Bock ed. Classification and Related Methods of Data Analysis Elsevier Science Publishers B. V. North Holland.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    Steels, L. (1993) The Componential Framework and Its Role in Reusability In David, J.M., Krivine, J.-P. and Simmons, R., editors Second Generation Expert Systems pp: 273–298. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Van de Velde, W. (1993) Issues in Knowledge Level Modeling In David, J.M., Krivine, J.-P. and Simmons, R., editors Second Generation Expert Systems pp: 211–231. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    Wille, R. (1982) Restructuring Lattice Theory: An Approach Based on Hierarchies of Concepts In Ordered Sets (Ed. Rival) pp:445–470, Reidel, Dordrecht, Boston.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    Wille, R. (1989a) Lattices in Data Analysis: How to Draw them with a Computer In Algorithms and Order (Ed. I. Rival) pp:33–58, Kluwer, Dordrecht, Boston.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    Wille, R. (1989b) Knowledge Acquisition by Methods of Formal Concept Analysis In Data Analysis, Learning Symbolic and Numeric Knowledge (Ed. E. Diday) pp:365–380, Nova Science Pub., New York.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    Wille, R. (1992) Concept Lattices and Conceptual Knowledge Systems Computers Math. Applic. (23)6–9:493–515.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    Wille, R. (1996) Conceptual Structures of Multicontexts Conceptual Structures: Knowledge Representation as Interlingua (Eds. P.Eklund, G. Ellis and G. Mann) pp:23–39, Springer.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    Zalta, E.N. (1988) Intentional Logic and the Metaphysics of Intentionality, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    Zdrahal, Z. and Motta, E. (1995) An In-Depth Analysis of Propose and Revise Problem Solving Methods 9th Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge Based Systems Workshop Banff, Canada, SRDG Publications, Departments of Computer Science, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada pp:38.1–38.20.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Debbie Richards
    • 1
  • Paul Compton
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Artificial Intelligence School of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations