A theory of analogy must describe how the meaning of an analogy is derived from the meanings of its parts. In the structure-mapping theory, the interpretation rules are characterized as implicit rules for mapping knowledge about a base domain into a target domain. Two important features of the theory are (a) the rules depend only on syntactic properties of the knowledge representation, and not on the specific content of the domains; and (b) the theoretical framework allows analogies to be distinguished cleanly from literal similarity statements, applications of abstractions, and other kinds of comparisons. Two mapping principles are described: (a) Relations between objects, rather than attributes of objects, are mapped from base to target; and (b) The particular relations mapped are determined by systematicity, as defined by the existence of higher-order relations. Cognitive Science, 7 (2), 155-€“170.

Artificial Intelligence, 21 (3), 327-50

Empirical Studies in the Arts, vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 17-34, and vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 125-142.

Swartout accrue from such an endeavor?

Journal of Pragmatics Volume 1, Issue 1, April 1977, pp. 69-83. Reprinted in Sedlow, Walter A., et al. (eds.) Computers in Language Research 2: Berlin: Degruiter & Co, 1983,

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. 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.

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.

Today, surrounded by so many automatic machines industrial robots, and the R2-D2's of Star wars movies, most people think AI is much more advanced than it is. But still, many "computer experts" don't believe that machines will ever "really think." I think those specialists are too used to explaining that there's nothing inside computers but little electric currents. And there are many other reasons why so many experts still maintain that machines can never be creative, intuitive, or emotional, and will never really think, believe, or understand anything.

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. 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.

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.