On March 27, 2006, I gave a light-hearted and occasionally bittersweet presentation on “Whatever Happened to AI?” at the Stanford Spring Symposium presentation – to a lively audience of active AI researchers and formerly-active ones (whose current inaction could be variously ascribed to their having aged, reformed, given up, redefined the problem, etc.)  This article is a brief chronicling of that talk, and I entreat the reader to take it in that spirit: a textual snapshot of a discussion with friends and colleagues, rather than a scholarly article. I begin by whining about the Turing Test, but only for a thankfully brief bit, and then get down to my top-10 list of factors that have retarded progress in our field, that have delayed the emergence of a true strong AI.

There have been many erroneous pre-scientific and common sense inductions. We want to understand why people believe in wrong theories. Our hypothesis is that mistaken inductions are due not only to the lack of facts, but also to the poor description of existing facts and to implicit knowledge which is transmitted socially. This paper presents several experiments the aim of which is to validate this hypothesis by using machine learning and data mining techniques to simulate the way people build erroneous theories from observations.

This article describes the architecture and AI technology behind an XML-based AI framework designed to streamline e-government form processing. The framework performs several crucial assessment and decision support functions, including workflow case assignment, automatic assessment, follow-up action generation, precedent case retrieval, and learning of current practices. To implement these services, several AI techniques were used, including rule-based processing, schema-based reasoning, AI clustering, case-based reasoning, data mining, and machine learning. The primary objective of using AI for e-government form processing is of course to provide faster and higher quality service as well as ensure that all forms are processed fairly and accurately. With AI, all relevant laws and regulations as well as current practices are guaranteed to be considered and followed. An AI framework has been used to implement an AI module for one of the busiest immigration agencies in the world.

Custom DU is an automated underwriting system that enables mortgage lenders to build their own business rules that facilitate assessing borrower eligibility for different mortgage products. Developed by Fannie Mae, Custom DU has been used since 2004 by several lenders to automate the underwriting of numerous mortgage products. Custom DU uses rule specification language techniques and a web-based, user-friendly interface for implementing business rules that represent business policy. By means of the user interface, lenders can also customize their underwriting findings reports, test the rules that they have defined, and publish changes to business rules on a real-time basis, all without any software modifications. The user interface enforces structure and consistency, enabling business users to focus on their underwriting guidelines when converting their business policy to rules. Once lenders have created their rules, loans are routed to the appropriate rule sets, and customized, but consistent, results are always returned to the lender. Using Custom DU, lenders can create different rule sets for their products and assign them to different channels of the business, allowing for centralized control of underwriting policies and procedures—even if lenders have decentralized operations.

Mining association rules is an important technique for discovering meaningful patterns in transaction databases. Many different measures of interestingness have been proposed for association rules. However, these measures fail to take the probabilistic properties of the mined data into account. In this paper, we start with presenting a simple probabilistic framework for transaction data which can be used to simulate transaction data when no associations are present. We use such data and a real-world database from a grocery outlet to explore the behavior of confidence and lift, two popular interest measures used for rule mining. The results show that confidence is systematically influenced by the frequency of the items in the left hand side of rules and that lift performs poorly to filter random noise in transaction data. Based on the probabilistic framework we develop two new interest measures, hyper-lift and hyper-confidence, which can be used to filter or order mined association rules. The new measures show significantly better performance than lift for applications where spurious rules are problematic.

Several technologies are emerging that provide new ways to capture, store, present and use knowledge. This book is the first to provide a comprehensive introduction to five of the most important of these technologies: Knowledge Engineering, Knowledge Based Engineering, Knowledge Webs, Ontologies and Semantic Webs. For each of these, answers are given to a number of key questions (What is it? How does it operate? How is a system developed? What can it be used for? What tools are available? What are the main issues?). The book is aimed at students, researchers and practitioners interested in Knowledge Management, Artificial Intelligence, Design Engineering and Web Technologies. During the 1990s, Nick worked at the University of Nottingham on the application of AI techniques to knowledge management and on various knowledge acquisition projects to develop expert systems for military applications. In 1999, he joined Epistemics where he worked on numerous knowledge projects and helped establish knowledge management programmes at large organisations in the engineering, technology and legal sectors. He is author of the book "Knowledge Acquisition in Practice", which describes a step-by-step procedure for acquiring and implementing expertise. He maintains strong links with leading research organisations working on knowledge technologies, such as knowledge-based engineering, ontologies and semantic technologies.

This article presents some fundamental ideas about representing knowledge and dealing with meaning in computer representations. I will describe the issues as I currently understand them and describe how they came about, how they fit together, what problems they solve, and some of the things that the resulting framework can do. The ideas apply not just to graph-structured "node-and-link" representations, sometimes called semantic networks, but also to representations referred to variously as frames with slots, entities with relationships, objects with attributes, tables with columns, and records with fields and to the classes and variables of object-oriented data structures. I will start by describing some background experiences and thoughts that preceded the writing of my 1975 paper, "What's in a Link," which introduced many of these issues. After that, I will present some of the key ideas from that paper with a discussion of how some of those ideas have matured since then. Finally, I will describe some practical applications of these ideas in the context of knowledge access and information retrieval and will conclude with some thoughts about where I think we can go from here.

This book proposes to separate knowledge from software and to make it a commodity that is called knowware. The architecture, representation and function of Knowware are discussed. The principles of knowware engineering and its three life cycle models: furnace model, crystallization model and spiral model are proposed and analyzed. Techniques of software/knowware co-engineering are introduced. A software component whose knowledge is replaced by knowware is called mixware. An object and component oriented development schema of mixware is introduced. In particular, the tower model and ladder model for mixware development are proposed and discussed. Finally, knowledge service and knowware based Web service are introduced and compared with Web service. In summary, knowware, software and hardware should be considered as three equally important underpinnings of IT industry. Ruqian Lu is a professor of computer science of the Institute of Mathematics, Academy of Mathematics and System Sciences. He is a fellow of Chinese Academy of Sciences. His research interests include artificial intelligence, knowledge engineering and knowledge based software engineering. He has published more than 100 papers and 10 books. He has won two first class awards from the Academia Sinica and a National second class prize from the Ministry of Science and Technology. He has also won the sixth Hua Loo-keng Mathematics Prize.

To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP), 2008. We are researching the interaction between the rule and the ontology layers of the Semantic Web, by comparing two options: 1) using OWL and its rule extension SWRL to develop an integrated ontology/rule language, and 2) layering rules on top of an ontology with RuleML and OWL. Toward this end, we are developing the SWORIER system, which enables efficient automated reasoning on ontologies and rules, by translating all of them into Prolog and adding a set of general rules that properly capture the semantics of OWL. We have also enabled the user to make dynamic changes on the fly, at run time. This work addresses several of the concerns expressed in previous work, such as negation, complementary classes, disjunctive heads, and cardinality, and it discusses alternative approaches for dealing with inconsistencies in the knowledge base. In addition, for efficiency, we implemented techniques called extensionalization, avoiding reanalysis, and code minimization.

Once the rules are formulated, This knowledge base is developed and maintained how does the stimuli generator ensure by knowledge engineers who are verification that all user-defined and validity rules, and as experts. Test templates are written by many expert knowledge rules as possible, are verification engineers who implement the test satisfied? How can the generator produce many significantly different tests from the plan. The generic engine, developed by software same test template? Finally, how is all this done engineers, accepts the architecture model, in an efficient manner as to not obstruct the expert knowledge, and test template and generates verification process?