Its goal is to capture, in a general form, the internal structure of the objects, relations, strategies, and processes used to solve tasks drawn from a source domain, and exploit that knowledge to improve performance in a target domain. A Note from the AI Magazine Editor in Chief: Part Two of the Structured Knowledge Transfer special issue will be published in the summer 2011 issue (volume 32 number 2) of AI Magazine. Articles in this issue will include: "Knowledge Transfer between Automated Planners," by Susana Fernández, Ricardo Aler, and Daniel Borrajo "Transfer Learning by Reusing Structured Knowledge," by Qiang Yang, Vincent W. Zheng, Bin Li, and Hankz Hankui Zhuo "An Application of Transfer to American Football: From Observation of Raw Video to Control in a Simulated Environment," by David J. Stracuzzi, Alan Fern, Kamal Ali, Robin Hess, Jervis Pinto, Nan Li, Tolga Könik, and Dan Shapiro "Toward a Computational Model of Transfer," by Daniel Oblinger While the field of psychology has studied transfer learning in people for many years, AI has only recently taken up the challenge. The topic received initial attention with work on inductive transfer in the 1990s, while the number of workshops and conferences has noticeably increased in the last five years. This special issue represents the state of the art in the subarea of transfer learning that focuses on the acquisition and reuse of structured knowledge.

In contrast to an explicit definition of each individual item, configurable products such as computers, financial service portfolios, and cars are repre sented in the form of a configuration knowledge base that de - scribes the properties of allowed instances. Although the knowledge representation used is different compared to nonconfi gurable products, the decision support requirements remain the same: users have to be supported in finding a solution that fits their wishes and needs. In this article we show how recommendation technologies can be applied for supporting the configuration of products. In addition to existing approaches we discuss relevant issues for future research. Similar to knowledge-based recommendation (Burke 2000) configuration is a process where users specify (and often adapt) their requirements and the configuration system provides feedback. Requirements specifications range from feature value definitions to textual queries specified on an informal level. Feedback is provided, for example, in terms of further questions that need to be answered, solutions (configurations), explanations of solutions, and proposals for relaxations of the user requirements in situations where no solution can be found. A major difference between configuration systems and recommender systems in general is the way in which product knowledge is represented. Configuration systems are operating on a configuration knowledge base (Stumptner 1997), which describes the properties of all allowed instances. In contrast to configuration systems, recommender systems are operating on the basis of an assortment of explicitly defined solution alternatives. The reason for using a configuration knowledge base is the large number of solution alternatives (possible configurations), which make an explicit representation infeasible. Although the used knowledge representations are different, the decision support goal is quite the same for both types of systems: users have to be proactively supported in finding a solution that fits their wishes and needs. Configuration systems often achieve this goal only partially since the amount and complexity of options presented by the configurator outstrip the capability of a user to identify an appropriate solution (configuration). Users are unable to find the features they would like to specify, they are unsure about their preferences regarding complex technical product properties, and they do not know how best to adapt their requirements in the case of inconsistencies (if no solution can be identified).

The International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning (ICCBR) has continuously been the preeminent international meeting on case-based reasoning (CBR). Through 2009, ICCBR had been a biennial conference, held in alternation with its sister conference, the European Conference on Case-Based Reasoning (ECCBR), which was located in Europe. At the 2009 ICCBR, the ICCBR Program Committee elected to extend an offer of consolidation with ECCBR. The offer was accepted by the ECCBR 2010 organizers and they considered it approved by the ECCBR community, as the two conferences shared a majority of Program Committee members. Therefore, starting in 2010, ICCBR and ECCBR are merged in a single conference series, called ICCBR.

Following a brief overview discussing why people prefer listening to expressive music instead of nonexpressive synthesized music, we examine a representative selection of well-known approaches to expressive computer music performance with an emphasis on AIrelated approaches. In the main part of the article we focus on the existing CBR approaches to the problem of synthesizing expressive music, and particularly on Tempo-Express, a case-based reasoning system developed at our Institute, for applying musically acceptable tempo transformations to monophonic audio recordings of musical performances. Finally we briefly describe an ongoing extension of our previous work consisting of complementing audio information with information about the gestures of the musician. Music is played through our bodies, therefore capturing the gesture of the performer is a fundamental aspect that has to be taken into account in future expressive music renderings. This article is based on the "2011 Robert S. Engelmore Memorial Lecture" given by the first author at AAAI/IAAI 2011.

This year ICCBR featured the Industry Day, the fifth annual Doctoral Consortium and three workshops.

The Twenty-Second International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning was held from September 29 to October 1, 2014. ICCBR is the annual meeting of the CBR community and the leading conference on this topic. Started in 1993 as the European Conference on CBR and 1995 as ICCBR, the two conferences alternated biennially until their merger in 2010. The main conference track featured 19 research paper presentations, 16 posters, and two invited speakers. The papers and posters reflected the state of the art of case-based reasoning, dealing both with open problems at the core of casebased reasoning (especially in similarity assessment, case adaptation, and case-based maintenance), as well as trending applications of CBR.

It was held on Sunday, 28 July 2002. The workshop papers are available as a technical report from AAAI Press. After a welcome and introductions, David Martin of SRI International started the day's presentations with an overview of the The objective of the language is to enable automated software agents to easily accomplish real-world planning tasks by discovering related services, selecting the most appropriate among them, composing them into effective plans, and invoking them to execute these plans and accomplish their tasks. The ServiceModel specification is aimed at supporting service invocation, composition, and monitoring and consists of a workflow model describing how the service is accomplished in terms of atomic and composite processes and their data and control dependencies. Finally, the ServiceGrounding specification specifies the implementation-specific details of service invocation, related to protocols, message formatting, and type serialization.

It first reviews the core issues in experiencebased design, for example, (1) the content of a design experience (or case), (2) the internal organization of design cases, (3) the language for indexing the cases, (4) the mechanism for retrieving a case relevant to a given design task, (5) the mechanism for adapting a retrieved design to satisfy the constraints of the design task, (6) the mechanism for evaluating a design against the specification of the design task, (7) the mechanism for redesigning a failed design, (8) the mechanism for acquiring new design knowledge, (9) the mechanism for chunking information about a design into a new case, and (10) the mechanism for storing a new case in memory for potential reuse in the future. It then proposes that decisions about these issues might lie in the designer's comprehension of the designs of artifacts he/she has encountered in the past, that is, in his/her mental models of how the designs achieve the functions and satisfy the constraints of the artifacts. To elaborate and evaluate this proposal, the dissertation analyzes the design of physical devices such as simple electric circuits, heat exchangers, and angular momentum controllers. It develops a theory of designers' comprehension of device designs in terms of functional models of how devices work. The functional model of a device provides a causal explanation of how the structure of the device produces its functions.

This special issue of AI Magazine brings seven articles presenting extended versions of papers from IAAI 2013. These articles were selected for their description of AI technologies that are either in practical use or close to it. Five of the articles describe deployed application case studies. These articles present fielded AI applications that distinguish themselves for their innovative use of AI technology. One article describes an emerging application.

AI can't solve these problems, it isn't AI have been vocal about this approach. Case-based reasoning provides both a methodology for building systems and a cognitive model of people. It is consistent with much that psychologists have observed in the natural problem solving people do. Psychologists have also observed, however, that people have several problems in doing analogical or case-based reasoning. Although they are good at using analogs to solve new problems, they are not always good at remembering the right ones.