Advertisement

Decisions and lack of precision in crop management: The role of processing both objects and procedures through semantic networks

  • Marianne Cerf
  • Sébastien Poitrenaud
  • Jean-François Richard
  • Michel Sebillotte
  • Charles Albert Tijus
9. Decision-Making Uncer Uncertainty
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 521)

Abstract

This paper adresses the central issue of technical agricultural decision in crop management intercourse which is a complex task where decision of action is the most crucial topic in regard to environment characteristics, in regard to the objects of the task and in regard to the procedures that have to be applied. Moreover, many object properties are variables which take imprecise values due to: the dynamic character of the cultivation system, more or less accessibility to these values, the presence of intermediary variables and, finally, imprecise instruments.

Starting with a functional diagram of [plant population*soil*weather*techniques] system and a set of observations for sugar beet settling, we describe agronomic and ergonomic knowledge integration in task decomposition. We then show that relevant knowledge can be represented into semantic networks of the objects of the task (where classes factorize common structure of objects through associated procedures with simple and multiple inheritance principles). In such semantic networks, objects are classes and subclasses instances by an inclusion relation which is defined by the procedures (considered as properties of classes of objects) which they may be applied to these objects. Then, we suggest how such a representation involves some farmers' decision making mecanisms in spite of uncertainty.

Keywords

Farmers' decision making procedural knowledge based-system semantic network 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ANZAI, Y. (1984). Cognitive control of real-time event-driven systems. Cognitive Science (8), 221–254.Google Scholar
  2. ANZAI, Y. & SIMON, H.A. (1979). The theory of learning by doing. Psychological Review, 80, 124–140.Google Scholar
  3. CAPILLON, A., SEBILLOTTE, M. & THIERRY, J. (1975). Evolution des exploitations agricoles d'une petite région. Elaboration d'une méthode d'étude. Chaire d'agronomie I.N.A. P.G., C.N.A.S.E.A.Google Scholar
  4. CERF, M., POITRENAUD, S., RICHARD, J.F., SEBILLOTTE, M. & TIJUS, C.A. (1990). Comment modéliser la conduite des cultures. Rapport intermédiaire de recherche M.R.T.Google Scholar
  5. FREDERIKSEN, C. H. (1988). The representation of procedures: Acquisition and Application of Procedural Knowledge. Actes du Colloque International "Informatique Cognitive des Organisations" ICO 89. Québec 12–15 juin 1989.Google Scholar
  6. GEORGE, C. (1983). Apprendre par l'action, Paris, P.U.F.Google Scholar
  7. GOLDBERG A., ROBSON D. (1983). Smalltalk-80, the language and its implementation, Reading Mass. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  8. HOC, J.M. (1989). Strategies in controlling a continuous process with long response latencies: needs for computer support to diagnosis. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, No 30, 47–67.Google Scholar
  9. KIERAS, D.E. & POLSON, P. (1985) An approach to the formal analysis of user complexity. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 22 (4) 365–394Google Scholar
  10. LECLUSE, C. & RICHARD, P. (1988). Modeling inheritance and genericity in Object Oriented Databases. Rapport technique Altaïr 18–88.Google Scholar
  11. MULLER, P. (1984). Le technocrate et le paysan. Les éditions ouvrières (eds).Google Scholar
  12. PAYNE, S.J. & GREEN, T.R.G. (1986). Task action grammars: a model of the mental representation of task languages. Human Computer Interaction, 2, 93–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. POITRENAUD, S., RICHARD, J.F., TIJUS, C.A., TAGREJ, M. & PICHANCOURT, I. (1990). La description des procédures: leur décomposition hiérarchique et leur rôle dans la catégorisation des objets. 4ème colloque de l'ARC "Progrès de la recherche cognitive", 28–30 mars 1990.Google Scholar
  14. REISNER, P. (1981). Formal grammar and human factors design of an interactive graphics system. IEEE Trans. Software Engineering, 7 (2), 229–240.Google Scholar
  15. RICHARD, J.F. (1983). Logique du fonctionnement et logique de l'utilisation. Rapport de recherche INRIA No 202.Google Scholar
  16. RICHARD, J.F. (1990). Les activités mentales: comprendre, raisonner, trouver des solutions. Paris, Colin (ed).Google Scholar
  17. SAMURCAY, R. & ROGALSKY, J. (1988). Designing systems for training and decision aids: cognitive task analysis as a prerequisite. In "Human-Computer Interaction" — Interact' 87, Bullinger, H.J. & Shackel, B. (eds). Elsevier Science Publishers, B.V., North-Holland, 113–152.Google Scholar
  18. SEBILLOTTE, M. (1978). La collecte des références et les progrès de la connaissance agronomique. In "Exigences nouvelles pour l'agriculture: les systèmes de culture pourront-ils s'adapter", sous la direction de Boiffin, J., Huet, P. & Sebillotte, M., Dec. 78, 466–493. INAPG-ADEPRINA.Google Scholar
  19. SEBILLOTTE, M. (1979). Analyse du fonctionnement des exploitations agricoles, trajectoires et typologie. In "Eléments pour une problématique de recherche sur les systèmes agraires et le développement". Assemblée constitutive du département S.A.D., Toulouse, 20–30.Google Scholar
  20. SEBILLOTTE, M. & SOLER, L.G. (1988). Le concept de modèle général et la compréhension du comportement de l'agriculteur. C.R. Ac. Agri. Fr., 74, 4, 59–70.Google Scholar
  21. TIJUS, C.A. (1988). Cognitive processes in artistic creation: toward the realization of a creative machine. Leonardo, 21, 167–172.Google Scholar
  22. TAUBER, M. (1988). On mental models and the user interface in human-computer interaction in Working with Computers: Theory versus Outcome. Van Der Veer G.C., Green T.R.G., Hoc J.M. & Murray D.M. (eds). Londres Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marianne Cerf
    • 1
  • Sébastien Poitrenaud
    • 2
  • Jean-François Richard
    • 2
  • Michel Sebillotte
    • 1
  • Charles Albert Tijus
    • 2
  1. 1.I.N.R.A. Département Systèmes Agraires et Développement Paris GrignonParis Cedex 05
  2. 2.Laboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive du Traitement de l'Information Symbolique Université de ParisSaint Denis Cedex 08

Personalised recommendations