Country
An Overview of Meta-Level Architecture
Genesereth, M. R. | Smith, D. E.
"One of the biggest problems in AT programming is the difficulty of specifying control. Meta-level architecture is a knowledge engineering approach to coping with this difficulty. The key feature of the architecture is a declarative control language that allows one to write partial specifications of program behavior. This flexibility facilitates incremental system dcvclopment and the integration of disparate architectures like demons, object-oriented programming, and controlled deduction. This paper presents the language, describes an appropriate, and cliscusses the issues of compiling. It illustrales the architecture with a variety of examples and reports some experience in using the architecture in building expert systems."Earlier: M. Genesereth and D.E. Smith. Meta-level Architecture. Memo HPP-81-6, Computer Science Department, Stanford University, 1981.In Proceedings of the AAAI, Washington, DC., August, 1983
An Approach to Verifying Completeness and Consistency in a Rule-Based Expert System
Suwa, Motoi, Scott, A. Carlisle, Shortliffe, Edward H.
We describe a program for verifying that a set of rules in an expert system comprehensively spans the knowledge of a specialized domain. The program has been devised and tested within the context of the ONCOCIN System, a rule-based consultant for clinical oncology. The stylized format of ONCOIN's rule has allowed the automatic detection of a number of common errors as the knowledge base has been developed. This capability suggests a general mechanism for correcting many problems with knowledge base completeness and consistency before they can cause performance errors.
Why People Think Computers Can't
Why People Think Computers Can't MOST PEOPLE ARE CONVINCED computers cannot think. I think those specialists are too used t,o That is, really think. This leads them to believe that there can't "thinking." This essay explains why they are wrong . Can Computers Do Only What They're Told? concerned with huge numerical computations: that's why the things were called computers. Most people think that "creativity" Yet even then a fringe of people envisioned what's now If so, then no computer can create-since, clearly, they realized that computers could manipulate not only numbers anything machines can do can be explained. To see what's wrong with that, we'd better turn aside able to go beyond arithmetic, perhaps to imitate the informa-from those outstanding works our cuhure views as very best Con processes that happen inside minds.
A View of the Fifth Generation and Its Impact
I apologise for any mistakes or misinterpretations I may therefore have made. In October 1981,.Japan announced a national project to develop highly innovative computer systems for the 199Os, with the title "Fifth Generation Computer Systems " This paper is a personal view of that project, The fifth generation plan its significance, and reactions to it. In late 1978 the Japanese Ministry of International Trade THIS PAPER PRESENTS a personal view of the Japanese and Industry (MITI) gave ETL the task of defining a project Fifth Generation Computer Systems project.
Interviewer/Reasoner Model: An Approach to Improving System Responsiveness in Interactive AI Systems
Gerring, Phillip E., Shortliffe, Edward H., Melle, William van
Interactive intelligent systems often suffer from a basic conflict between their computationally intensive nature and the need for responsiveness to a user. This paper introduces the Interviewer/Reasoner model, which helps to reduce this conflict. This model partitions an intelligent system into two asynchronous components. The Interviewer's primary function is to gather data while providing an acceptable response time to the user. The Reasoner does most of the symbolic computation for the system. This paper describes the implementation of the model in both timesharing and personal workstation environments, and uses the ONCOCIN system as an example.
A Representation System User Interface for Knowledge Base Designers
A major strength of frame-based knowledge representation languages is their ability to provide the knowledge base designer with a concise and intuitively appealing means expression. The claim of intuitive appeal is based on the observation that the object -centered style of description provided by these languages often closely matches a designer's understanding of the domain being modeled and therefore lessens the burden of reformulation involved in developing a formal description. To be effective as a knowledge base development tool, a language needs to be supported by an implementation that facilitates creating, browsing, debugging, and editing the descriptions in the knowledge base. We have focused on providing such support in a SmallTalk (Ingalls, 1978) implementation of the KL-ONE knowledge representation language (Brachman, 1978), called KloneTalk, that has been in use by several projects for over a year at Xerox PARC. In this note, we describe those features of KloneTalk's displaybased interface that have made it an effective knowledge base development tool, including the use of constraints to automatically determine descriptions of newly created data base items.
Towards the Principled Engineering of Knowledge
The acquisition of expert knowledge is fundamental to the certain of expert systems. The conventional approach to building expert systems assumes that the knowledge exists, and that it is feasible to find an expert who has the knowledge and can articulate it in collaboration with a knowledge engineer. This article considers the practice of knowledge engineering when these assumptions can not be strictly justified. It draws on our experiences in the design of VLSI design methods, and in the prototyping of an expert assistant for VLSI design. We suggest methods for expanding the practice of knowledge engineering when applied to fields that are fragmented and undergoing rapid evolution. We outline how the expanded practice can shape and accelerate the process of knowledge generation and refinement. Our examples also clarify some of the unarticulated present practice of knowledge engineering.