WO1999066420A1 - Generic knowledge management system - Google Patents
Generic knowledge management system Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- WO1999066420A1 WO1999066420A1 PCT/AU1999/000501 AU9900501W WO9966420A1 WO 1999066420 A1 WO1999066420 A1 WO 1999066420A1 AU 9900501 W AU9900501 W AU 9900501W WO 9966420 A1 WO9966420 A1 WO 9966420A1
- Authority
- WO
- WIPO (PCT)
- Prior art keywords
- knowledge
- space
- source
- region
- destination
- Prior art date
Links
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06N—COMPUTING ARRANGEMENTS BASED ON SPECIFIC COMPUTATIONAL MODELS
- G06N5/00—Computing arrangements using knowledge-based models
- G06N5/04—Inference or reasoning models
- G06N5/043—Distributed expert systems; Blackboards
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06N—COMPUTING ARRANGEMENTS BASED ON SPECIFIC COMPUTATIONAL MODELS
- G06N5/00—Computing arrangements using knowledge-based models
- G06N5/02—Knowledge representation; Symbolic representation
- G06N5/022—Knowledge engineering; Knowledge acquisition
Definitions
- This invention concerns a computer technology for the design of knowledge systems, for the acquisition, modelling, storage and access of knowledge for these systems, and for the maintenance of that knowledge.
- This technology will be referred to as Generic Knowledge Management System (GKMS).
- GKMS Generic Knowledge Management System
- KBSs Knowledge-based systems
- KBS design is different from traditional software where the knowledge about a problem and its solution is integrated into the code that processes that knowledge. Because of the separation between knowledge and its processing, KBSs, in principle, should be easier to develop and maintain and safer to use than traditional programs. However it is not the case in practice and the penetration of KBSs in industry is very small compared to spreadsheets, databases and word processors
- the invention is a computerised generic knowledge management system, comprising: a multi-dimensional global space within computer memory defined by attributes, where each attribute defines a feature of the external world or the internal state of the system, or actions that can be taken to modify them, and each attribute is a dimension of the global space; a source space, within the global space, made up of selected ones of the attributes to define a context, in which to state problems; a destination space, within the global space, made of selected ones of the attributes to define a context in which to provide answers to problems stated in the source space; mappings between defined parts of the source space which each represent one or more stated problems, to defined parts of the destination space which each represent one or more answers expressing and embodying knowledge supplied by experts appropriate to the respective problems stated in the part of the source space.
- the system may enjoy a number of advantages. For instance, The system is able to inform a user when the answer to a problem falls outside its knowledge, that is the problem stated is outside a defined part of the source space. In this case the system is able to ask a domain expert (that is an expert in that domain of knowledge) to increase its knowledge by providing the answer and defining an appropriate part of the source and destination space and an appropriate mapping. The experts are also able to maintain the system's knowledge by correcting existing defined parts. In this way the system is able to get more knowledgeable as it is being used.
- Knowledge acquisition may be incremental and interactive.
- the knowledge is certified, that is verified and validated, by the expert at acquisition time. Since the system knows the limits of its knowledge it is able to restrict the use of its knowledge to situation it recognises, that is to problems that fall within the regions in the source space. These regions have been approved by domain experts.
- Such systems can form natural extensions of human beings for the management of their knowledge. It is possible for humans to use the system to store knowledge, retrieve it, modify it, extend it and share it with other experts and with users who are not experts. Domain experts can use such systems as repositories of their knowledge and as tools for the development and codification of new knowledge acquired as they gain experience in their domain of expertise.
- the defined parts of the source and destination spaces may be points or regions.
- the destination space may also be part of the source space.
- the two spaces can overlap.
- the mapping process can be explanations or actions. Explanation mappings are not calculated, they are stated. Explanation mappings are associated with code which enable the outcome to be displayed on a screen or printer. Action mappings may associate a sitLiation in the source space to actions expressed in the destination space. In this case the destination space is made of instructions to be carried out by agents. Alternatively, action mappings may be specified by a function or module that can be calculated, using the values of the source attributes that define the situation as parameters. The result of these mappings are attributes which can take values.
- Source and destination space editing sub-systems may enable authorised users to define and modify the destination and source spaces or contexts.
- a mapping editing sub-system may enable experts to define mappings which embody knowledge.
- This sub-module may present the expert with the source context which allows the selection of attributes which belong to a region and the specification, for each attribute, of the range of values which mark the borders of the region in each dimension, each attribute is a dimension.
- the region specifies the conditions which determine whether a mapping can fire. The process is similar for the destination space. The two regions are then linked and identified as a mapping.
- mapping independence is seen as a major advantage in that it frees developers from the issue of location.
- a composite system may comprise a collection of systems in which the source contexts of the systems are united, the destination contexts of the systems are united and the mappings of the systems are united to form the composite.
- a composite system made of systems with overlapping contexts is referred to a knowledge base.
- Composite systems can be concatenated or grouped to build larger knowledge bases.
- a query definition sub-system may enable a user to define a query in the source space, or a process to perform the role of a user.
- the user defines a situation for the knowledge processing module to act on.
- Each object or attrib ite in the source space can take three values in an inquiry: 'specified', 'don't know' and 'unspecified'.
- the query definition can be non-interactive, in which case the system presents the user with the complete source space. The user then specifies a situation and the system looks for regions compatible with the query. If there are compatible regions, then their outcomes are presented to the user. If there isn't any compatible region, the user is informed.
- the query definition may be interactive, in which case the system presents the user with one or a few questions at a time for the user to answer. Once it is done, the system processes the answers and determines the next best questions to ask. The best questions are those that lead to the mappings, that is regions, compatible with the query with as few questions as possible. When the system has identified a compatible region, then it presents its outcome to the user. If the system cannot find a compatible region, it informs the user.
- a hybrid query definition is also possible where the system presents the user with several questions grouped logically, that is addressing a single issue. Once the user has answered these questions, the system presents the next group of questions, or single question, as the case may be.
- Knowledge processing may be used to identify whether there are regions that are compatible with the inquiry.
- Knowledge processing starts with a list of candidate regions or mappings, initially all the regions in the knowledge base, and on the basis of the objects specified in the inquiry, that is the vahies of the dimensions in the source space, determines: the regions that are ruled out by the inquiry; the regions that are compatible with the inquiry; and the regions that are undetermined, that is. the regions for which one cannot say whether they are compatible or ruled out because some questions have not yet been asked.
- the process may stop when: there are no more candidate regions or mappings; there are no more undetermined regions or mappings; or there are no more objects whose values have not been determined.
- non-interactive processing the system takes as input the query defined by the user and looks for regions in the source space that are compatible with the query. A region is compatible with the query if the region contains (as defined) the query. This means that the value of each object in the region contains the value of the object in the query.
- interactive processing calculates the discriminating power (as defined) of each object, or dimension, in the source space the value of which has not yet been specified. Once the discriminating power of each object is calculated, the system asks the questions with the highest discriminating power.
- the system either presents all the related questions or selects one of them only for presentation to the user. Once the user has supplied the answer(s) related to the object(s) with the highest discriminating power, the system uses the answer(s) to remove from the list of candidate all the knowledge items that are ruled out by the answer. The process described above is then repeated.
- Interactive processing can be either forward chaining or backward chaining.
- the invention is a data acquisition method for a computerised generic knowledge management system, comprising the steps of: inspecting a problem that either has no answer or an answer which is deemed to be inadequate, that is a problem for which there is no defined part of the source space; specifying attributes, and if appropriate, explanations relevant to the problem; defining the solution to the problem; generalising the source context to generalise the inquiiy to a larger part of the source space; and saving the knowledge item generated.
- the solution may be defined after the source context has been generalised.
- An inquiiy may be accompanied by a message from the user who filed the inquiry.
- the message may describe the inquiry more specifically or in more details.
- the context, of either the so irce or destination may be reduced or enlarged. New attributes can be added.
- Knowledge items or mappings need to be ordered according to their fit with the enquiries. This applies to definite outcomes only or to definites and candidates outcomes.
- the fit is determined by three factors: 1. Weight of each source attribute, weights may not all be equal. 2.
- Domain experts need to manage the knowledge base from the point of view of knowledge comprehensiveness, consistency, quality, etc.
- the tools available to assist them are to: Detect overlapping knowledge items, in their source and/or destination to ensure they are compatible.
- Figure 1 is a diagram showing knowledge in the cognitive model.
- Figure 2 is a cognitive model reasoning flow chart.
- Figure 3 illustrates the mapping from source space to destination space.
- Figure 4 is a block diagram illustrating the composite GKMS module design.
- Figure 5 is a block diagram showing the network of GKMS knowledge bases.
- Figure 6 is a flowchart showing knowledge processing.
- Figure 7 is a diagram of the elementary GKMS model architecture.
- Figure 8 illustrates the definite and candidate knowledge items.
- Figure 9 illustrates the definite and candidate knowledge items.
- Figure 10 illustrates the architecture for a computer system based on the cognitive model.
- Figure 11 is a block diagram of the architecture for a user only system based on the cognitive model.
- the invention is based on a cognitive model in which expertise is applied locally and then an attempt is made to generalise. That is, a domain expert first determines the attributes necessary to define an explicit global context for a class of problems and solutions. The domain expert then specifies problem and solution contexts within the global context using the attributes. The domain expert then defines a specific problem within the problem context using the attributes. The domain expert next provides a specific answer to the specific problem. Finally the domain expert expands the specific problem into a region of the problem context where the same specific answer, taking account of its context, is deemed by the expert to hold.
- a useable system requires the definition of several, sometimes many, regions and associated answers. These regions are typically defined when a problem is encountered for which there is no existing answer in the system, that is. the problem does not fall within an existing region.
- the domain expert can decide to define regions in the problem space based on hypothetical problems.
- a knowledge item consists of a region of a problem and its associated answer, both defined in their respective contexts, and it may be expressed as a mapping.
- the model assumes that knowledge has no global validity, but that knowledge is inseparable from its context. This is represented in Figure 1 where the global context is a space with attributes along the axes.
- Figure 1 there are six regions in a 2-Dimensional problem plane. The precise problems that triggered the definition of the regions are shown as • in the plane, and six corresponding answers are shown as • on the "answers" axis. Notable features are: 1.
- the regions can be of different shapes and sizes, as judged appropriate by the domain expert.
- the system invites a user to define a specific problem.
- the system checks whether the problem falls within a region defined in the problem context.
- the system informs the user that no answer can be given at this stage. 5.
- the system then refers the problem to a domain expert who: a) specifies the answer to the problem, and b) defines a region or mapping for that answer.
- Knowledge is local in that each knowledge item is a problem region and its answer in a global context which determines the types and ranges of problems that can be addressed. It is the role of domain experts to use their experience and judgment to define the global context. Because of the local property of knowledge in the model, it is possible to define a global context with a different number of attributes, or dimensions, for different knowledge items, and for the problem regions and the answers.
- the Reasoning Process consists of:
- a non-interactive search Selecting the region or regions most relevant to the enquiry
- An interactive search defining the enquiry as completely as possible finding the regions that contain it.
- Interactive searching then involves asking the user only these questions about the problem that enable the system to arrive at a solution as quickly as possible. Each question elicits some features about the enquiiy and directs the search towards the most relevant part of the problem space.
- Interactive searching can be achieved, for example, by measuring the "regions discriminating power" of each feature in the problem space and by asking, at each step in the inferencing process, only about these features that have the highest discriminating power.
- the elementary GKMS module is the basic building block for all GKMS implementations. It comprises a source context or space, a destination context or space, and a mapping that can be action or explanation (that is, at least one knowledge item).
- the source space is made of attributes or objects that enable the expert user to define situations.
- the source space typically contains attributes that define the external world. However it can also contain attributes that define the internal state of the system. When it is the case, mappings can be used to take actions based on the state of the system, that is, mappings can be used to control the behaviour of the system.
- the destination space is made of attributes that describe actions, events, statements about the external world. It specifies the actions that can be taken to modify the external world or the internal state of the system.
- the destination space can also be part of the source space.
- the two spaces can overlap.
- mappings express and embody the knowledge supplied by experts to provide answers, expressed in the destination space, appropriate to the sit iations described in the source space.
- a mapping is a relationship between part of a source space onto part of a destination space, typically from a situation or group of situations in the source space onto an outcome in the destination space. In Figure 3, all the situations in the source space which are part of the region are linked to the same outcome. Both spaces are multi-dimensional.
- the curved arrow with its attendant source and destination spaces, its region from the source space to its outcome in the destination space represent the mapping. It specifies a region in the problem space and a way to produce an outcome when the conditions of the problem place it within the region.
- the mapping process can be explanations or actions.
- the source and destination spaces define the context for the mapping..
- Explanation mappings are defined by their source and their destination. They are not calculated, they are stated. Explanation mappings are associated with code which enable the outcome to be displayed on a screen or printer.
- Action mappings come in two types: - Type 1 mappings associate a situation in the source space to actions expressed in the destination space.
- the destination space instead of being explanations as in explanation mappings is made of instructions to be carried out by the some agents.
- Type 2 mappings are specified by a function or module that can be calculated, using the values of the source attributes that define the situation as parameters.
- the result of type 2 mappings are attrib ites which can take values. Programming can be viewed as the calculation of action mappings, one after another.
- a workflow module in which the action to be taken by the system, outcome, are predicated by a situation described in the source space (type 1).
- Time can be an attribute, or object, both in the source and destination spaces.
- the elementary GKMS module supports the following functions: A source and destination spaces editing sub-module A explanation mapping editing sub-module An action mapping editing sub-module A knowledge base A query definition sub-module A processing sub-mod ile A svstem behaviour sub-module
- the GKMS module has two types of users:
- the expert or experts who are responsible for defining the source and destination spaces, and for entering and managing the mappings, or knowledge, in the module. They are accountable for the accuracy and currency of the mappings, or knowledge.
- This sub-module enables authorised users to define and modify the destination and source spaces or contexts. These spaces are constructed out of attributes or objects.
- Contexts are defined as a hierarchy of attributes which are categorised in groups of folders. This is similar to the file system on a personal computer, with enables users to organise their files or documents in folders and subfolders.
- Context editing enables experts to define attributes or objects used to describe the conditions for a mapping to take place (source context) and the range of possible outcomes of mappings (destination context). It also enables the experts to organise these attributes in folders and subfolders.
- the source and destination contexts represent the domain in which mappings (or knowledge) are expressed.
- Table 1 shows these objects with their properties and types. The dimensions of the source and destination spaces are equal to the number of objects or attributes in these spaces. Table 1: Context objects and their properties
- Mapping editing enables experts to define mappings which embody knowledge. Mapping definition takes place in the source and destination contexts. Experts define a region in the source space, and attach it to an outcome in the destination space, the outcome can also be a region.
- This sub-module presents the expert with the source context which allows the selection of attributes which belong to a region and the specification, for each attribute, of the range of values which mark the borders of the region in each dimension, each attribute is a dimension.
- the region specifies the conditions which determine whether a mapping can fire. The process is similar for the destination space. The two regions are then linked and identified as a mapping. Each item is an object in the GKMS module.
- mappings represent knowledge with respect to their explicit domain of discourse. This point is very important as any form of knowledge is context dependent; that is, it is associated to an explicit domain of discourse.
- a mapping is dissociated from its domain of discourse (by expressing only its region and outcome without specifying the complete so irce and destination contexts for example) then it ceases to represent precise and reliably useful knowledge.
- a module can contain mappings each defined with respect to a different domain of discourse.
- the elementary GKMS module enables experts to define knowledge in the form of explanation or action mappings, which is explicitly context dependent.
- the region in the source context determines when a mapping can fire.
- This process is 'location independent'; that is, it is independent from where the mapping is located in a system.
- This can be contrasted to usual programs where the knowledge about the processing is located in the code itself and the operations depend on the location of the code in the program.
- Location independence is seen as a major advantage in that it frees developers from the issLie of location. Processing behaviour depends only on the conditions for a mapping to take place, expressed as a region in the source space. There is however an additional load put upon the system that now has to find which mapping applies next, a requirement that is taken care of in normal programming by the location of the code.
- This sub-module enables experts to define and edit mappings, or knowledge items, of the explanation type.
- Table 3 Object range specification for source and destination attributes in ex lanation ma in s
- the specification 'does not matter' can be either explicit or implicit.
- the expert has to specify the range (even 'does not matter') for each object in the region in the source space.
- the objects are assumed to have the default value 'does not matter' unless a range or value is specified.
- an object in the destination space When an object in the destination space is attached to a region, that is the object becomes part of the outcome of an inference process, then it automatically becomes a member of the so irce space, preferably into a folder labelled 'inferred objects'.
- An 'inferred object' can also be identified with an icon or a colovir and be located anywhere in the source space list.
- the source and destination spaces are said to be overlapping.
- the region is then labelled as 'inferred region' (an inferred region has at least one inferred object).
- Objects and regions that are not inferred are also described as primary objects and regions.
- Figure 1 illustrates explanation items in the source-destination context.
- the • in all regions except r4 indicate that an enquiry was presented for which there was no answer.
- the system then presented the enquiry to an expert who attached it to an outcome.
- the expert defined a region around the enquiry so that all future enquiries falling inside the region produce the same OLitcome.
- This last step add usefulness to the knowledge stored in the System as the item becomes applicable to a range of situations rather than to one situation only.
- the explanation mapping is specified by the properties listed in Table 4.
- This sub-module enables experts to define and edit mappings, or knowledge items, of the action type.
- Table 5 Object range specification for source and destination attributes in action ma in s
- Date/time variable Specify compatible date or range of dates Specify complement of compatible date or range of dates
- Action object Specify compatible states (specify input and/or otitput states or ranges)
- the action mapping is specified by its properties as listed in Table 4.
- the expert specifies the objects, typically numeric and logical, that are the input to the mapping and then defines the mapping.
- the output is computed, not specified in a static way as for explanation mappings.
- the mapping is defined as follows:
- Do Loops Do While, Do Until, etc
- the primitive set may include the operations that are carried out on the registers in a microprocessor.
- the outcome is the result of the computation. It automatically becomes part of the destination space and part of the source space (preferably into a folder labelled as 'calculated outcomes'). The last point ensures that action mappings can be chained to produce arbitrary complex calculations. It means that the source and destination spaces overlap.
- GKMS environment whereas a software object has been defined elsewhere; it could be part of a library of procedures for example.
- an action object as part of the destination space specifies the conditions when the software object becomes part of the outcome.
- an action object as part of the outcome can mean:
- a composite GKMS module is a collection of elementary GKMS modules. It comprises the same elements as the elementary GKMS module.
- Figure 4 illustrates the GKMS model with the source space comprising subsets of the destination space and internal state of the system.
- the input into the source space comprises elements of the external world, of the destination space and of the internal state. It is also possible to have the output included which becomes a subset of the destination space component of the input.
- a composite GKMS module made of elementary modules with overlapping contexts is referred to a knowledge base.
- a "composite GKMS” is likely to have knowledge items that have different source and destination contexts.
- the relevant information is presented to users so that they can make their own evaluation as to the validity of the context used in the knowledge item (and which affects the validity of the advice).
- the source context tells users whether the person who entered the advice considered enough issues for defining the applicability of the knowledge. For example, advice about diet may use a context that does not consider the daily physical activity of the person accessing the advice.
- An elite sports person may decide, on inspecting the source context, that the provider of the advice did not consider all the relevant issues and discard the advice. Conversely, the sports person may decide to accept the advice, even if unexpected, if he/she can see that it the advisor did consider level of physical activity as relevant.
- the destination context specifies the range of possible solutions that an advisor considers applicable to the range of problems it is dealing with.
- an advisor may reject a range of foods (say, poultry) for animal rights reasons.
- a user may decide to reject the advice because, by inspecting the destination context, it can see that this advisor had a particular view about food that was affected by issues unrelated to diet (i.e. animal rights).
- another user may choose to take this advice because the destination context rules out poultry food.
- each advice when viewed, offers the option (via a button) to inspect the source and destination contexts associated with the knowledge item.
- Composite GKMS modules can be concatenated or grouped to build larger knowledge bases. When composite modules have overlapping contexts they are described as overlapping knowledge bases. When they have non- overlapping contexts they are described as disjointed or independent knowledge bases. When independent knowledge bases need to be concatenated, then relationships between the knowledge bases need to be made explicit. For example part of the destination context of one composite module can become part of the source space of another module. Another possibility is that both the source and destination of the two composite modules overlap.
- the contexts of the knowledge bases are disjoint.
- the link between the two knowledge bases is done by defining another module or knowledge base which links and explains some elements of the contexts of the independent knowledge bases.
- the destination space of one module becomes the source space, or part of the source space, of another GKMS module.
- Module 0 is a source GKMS to the destination modules 1 and 3
- module 2 is a source GKMS to module 0.
- the networking of GKMS modules gives flexibility for knowledge management and accountability.
- module 0 could deal with the hardware aspects of a microprocessor device, module 1 with the low level software, module 2 with application software.
- Each module can have different domain experts who are responsible for the quality and currency of the knowledge for their module only.
- Knowledge certification in networked modules can be either local or global. Local certification is when each GKMS module is certified independently of the other modules. A change to the destination space of a source module, say GKMS 0 in Figure 5, does not affect the certification of the destination module GKMS 1 and 3 in Figure 5. Global certification requires all destination modules to be re-certified when a change takes place in the destination space of a source GKMS.
- the expert is presented with a diagram (graphics) similar to that in Figure 5, without the connecting arrows.
- the expert then can add the connecting arrows to define the links between the GKMS modules.
- clicking on a module the expert is taken to the module itself and has access to all the functionality of the elementaiy GKMS module.
- the structure above is collapsed onto a single two layer structure, a single source space and a single destination space.
- This sub-module enables a user to define a query in the source space, or a process to perform the role of a user. In effect, the user defines a situation for the knowledge processing module to act on.
- Each object in the source space can take three values in an enquiry: i) specified, ii) 'don't know' and iii) 'unspecified'.
- the query definition can be one of two modes:
- the GKMS presents the user with the complete source space. The user then specifies a situation and the GKMS looks for regions compatible with the query. If there are compatible regions, then their outcomes are presented to the user. If there isn't any compatible region, the user is informed. In this case, the query can be transmitted to an interactive enquiiy.
- the GKMS presents the user with one or a few questions at a time for the user to answer. Once it is done, the GKMS processes the answers and determines the next best question(s) to ask. The best questions are those that lead to the mappings, that is regions, compatible with the query with as few questions as possible. When the system has identified a compatible region, then it presents its outcome to the user. If the system cannot find a compatible region, it informs the user.
- the GKMS presents the tiser with several questions grouped logically, that is addressing a single issue. Once the user has answered these questions, the system presents the next group of questions, or single question, as the case may be.
- Knowledge processing is the process tised by GKMS to identify whether there are regions that are compatible with the enquiiy.
- Knowledge processing starts with a list of candidate regions or mappings, initially all the regions in the knowledge base, and on the basis of the objects specified in the enquiry, that is the values of the dimensions in the source space, determines: a) the regions that are ruled out by the enquiry; b) the regions that are compatible with the enquiry; c) the regions that are undetermined, that is, the regions for which one cannot say whether they are compatible or ruled out because some questions have not yet been asked.
- Processing stops when: a) there are no more candidate regions or mappings b) there are no more undetermined regions or mappings, or c) there are no more objects whose values have not been determined. Processing can stop with several outcomes: a) There is at least one or more regions compatible with the enquiry b) There is no region compatible with the enquiry.
- the user is informed and the query is stored and presented to an expert who then defines a mapping, action or explanation, with a region and an outcome, with the region containing the enquiry.
- mapping independence is seen as a major advantage in that it frees developers from the issue of location. Processing behaviour depends only on the conditions for a mapping to take place, expressed as a region in the source space. There is however an additional load put upon the system that now has to find which mapping applies next, a requirement that is taken care of in normal programming by the location of the code.
- the GKMS takes as input the query defined by the user and looks for regions in the source space that are compatible with the query.
- a region is compatible with the query if the region "contains” the query. This means that the value of each object in the region contains the value of the object in the query. See Table 7 below for the meaning of "contain”. This applies whether the 'does not matter' is explicit or implicit in the regions, but the system must check all objects in the source space and the dimension, number of space dimensions required to specify the region, of each region is equal to the dimension of the source space. This can be a significant computing overhead when many dimensions have values 'do not matter' in the specification of the region.
- the GKMS only considers the objects whose values have been specified for processing.
- the system determines which regions are compatible, which are ruled out and which are still candidates: ruled out regions are those that are not compatible with the enquiry on the basis of the specified objects in the enquiry.
- compatible regions are those that are compatible with the enquiry on the basis of the specified objects in the enquiry and for which all the unspecified objects or dimensions have values (in the region) equal to 'does not matter'.
- candidate regions are those that are compatible with the enquiry on the basis of the specified objects in the enquiry and for which some of the unspecified objects or dimensions have values (in the region) that are not
- the system moves to an interactive processing mode to determine whether some of these candidate regions may be compatible with a more precise enquiry, as will now be described.
- the system calculates the 'discriminating power' of each object, or dimension, in the source space the value of which has not yet been specified.
- the discriminating power can be calculated in 2 ways: a) Calctilate the number of regions, or mappings, for which the value of the object does matter.
- the discriminating power is the number divided by the number of regions in the candidate list. This assumes that the number of regions for each of the legal values of the object is approximately the same.
- b) Calculate the number of regions, or mappings, for which the value of the object does matter, for each possible value of the object; the range of values for each object is divided in segments.
- the discriminating power is the average number of regions per segment, multiplied by the number of segments and divided by the number of regions in the candidate list. This number is weighted with (in the first instance, divided by) its variance (the lower the variance the higher the discriminating power).
- the system asks the question with the highest discriminating power. If several objects have the same discriminating power, then the system either presents all the related questions or selects one of them only for presentation to the user. Once the user has supplied the answer related to the object with the highest discriminating power, the system uses the answer to remove from the list of candidate all the knowledge items that are ruled out by the answer. The process described above is then repeated, that is, the discriminating power of each non-specified object or dimensions in the remaining candidates is then calculated, etc. This is carried out until there are no more candidate regions, no more undetermined regions or no more dimensions for which the values have not been ascertained.
- Interactive processing can be either forward chaining or backward chaining.
- Forward chaining processing selects, via the interactive question/answer session, the next best question that will identify the region, if any, that contains the query.
- Backward chaining processing selects, via the interactive question/answer session, the next best question that will identify the region, if any, that is compatible with the desired outcome.
- users can define a desired outcome by selecting from the objects in the destination space and then find out whether their situation applies.
- the desired outcome may require the situation to be described by more than one region.
- the system calculates the discriminating power of source dimensions as follows: a) Calculate the number of knowledge items for which the value of the objects in the desired outcome do matter.
- the discriminating power is the number divided by the total number of outcomes. This assumes that the number of outcomes for each of the legal values of the object is approximately the same.
- the discriminating power is the average number of regions per segment weighted with (in the first instance, divided by) its variance (the lower the variance the higher the discriminating power).
- Non-interactive processing can also be backward.
- users define a desired otitcome and the systems informs them of the regions, if any, that are compatible with the stated outcome.
- the system does that by finding which existing outcomes in the knowledge base contain the target outcome and then selects the ones with the number of stated dimensions nearest to the number of stated dimensions in the target outcome. If no region is compatible, the system can calculate which dimensions of the outcome would need to be changed for the modified outcome to be compatible with a region, by the system finding which outcomes in the knowledge base has the nearest number of compatible dimensions, either too many or too few, with the desired outcome. The system then presents these outcomes.
- Hybrid processing takes place when a user starts by defining an enquiry in a non-interactive way, using a subset of all the dimensions in the source space, either the system presents only a subset or the user makes use of only a subset.
- the system selects the knowledge items compatible with the enquiry and, if there are more than one, guides the user to the most appropriate knowledge item, if any. using interactive processing.
- the system identifies one or several regions that are compatible with the enquiry.
- the system may also detect that there are still regions that are candidates with the enquiry, that is, knowledge items that have not been eliminated on the basis of the information supplied by the user, either by specification of an enquiry in a non-interactive way or by answering the questions asked by the system so far. In this case, the system moves into a non-interactive processing mode to determine which is the best next question to ask in order to identify the most appropriate knowledge item.
- This situation happens when not all dimensions have been specified, and also when a region has sub-regions. While the region is compatible with the enquiry defined so far, a more precise answer may be given if the problem situation can be determined to, in fact, belong to one of the sub- regions.
- the system identifies sub-regions by checking whether a region contains another (see Table 4 for the meaning of 'contain').
- inferred objects are a members of the destination space, attached to primaiy regions r(i) in the source space, which are themselves part of inferred regions, say r(j), in the source space.
- r(i) primaiy regions
- r(j) primaiy regions
- Inference chaining is based on objects whose value is the outcome of an inference. A question arises regarding their discriminating power. The discriminating power of inferred objects does not need to be calculated. Only the discriminating power of non-inferred objects is calculated. An outcome attached to a region which has inferred objects is selected when its 'collapsed equivalent' region is compatible with the enquiry. The 'collapsed equivalent' region is the region obtained in the source space when all the inferred objects are replaced by the objects in the region to which they, the inferred objects, belong. By collapsing the regions, one can also determine whether the inference chaining is consistent. That is, whether some objects in the inferred regions are required to take two different values for the chain to be inferable to the end. That is whether a primary region requires a certain value to an inferred object to be activated which in is a member of another region that requires the same object to take a different, incompatible value for the inference chain to continue.
- Step 1 Identify the compatible and undetermined regions (that is, the regions which are not ruled-out). This is done in three steps, for each knowledge item in the candidate list: Step 1: Identify the regions (or knowledge items) which can be compatible or undetermined regions. This is done by identifying the regions in which at least one object (question) is present in the source region of the knowledge item with the correct value (that is, with the value given in the answer being part of the region).
- Criterion 1 objectl-valuel
- objectl with value 1 in enquiry is present in candidate region, or object2 with value2 in enquiry is present in candidate region, or
- step 1 is a collection of knowledge items (collection!) .
- Step 2 Identify the regions (or knowledge items) in the candidate list that can be ruled-out. This is done by identifying the regions in which one object (question) is present in the source region of the knowledge item but with the wrong value (that is, the value given in the answer to the question in not part of the region).
- Criterion 2 (objectl ¬ objectl-valuel)
- objectl is present in the candidate region but with the wrong value
- object2 is present in the candidate region but with the wrong value
- objectN is present in the candidate region but with the wrong value
- step 2 is a collection of knowledge items (collection2).
- Step 3 The collection of knowledge items that need to be kept as compatible and undetermined is given by:
- Criterion 3 ( Criterion 1 ) & not ( Criterion 2 )
- Compatible and undetermined regions are discriminated by determining the score of each region (or knowledge item) present in the collection returned by 1 above.
- the score of a region is given by the number of questions or defined objects in the enquiry that are present in the region under consideration. From that the compatible and undetermined regions can be identified by comparing the score with the number of defined objects in the knowledge item regions.
- Score number of defined objects in the knowledge item region
- Candidate regions Score ⁇ number of defined objects in the knowledge item region
- the score of each region is calculated as follows:
- Score objectl-valuel + object2-value2 + ... + objectN-valueN
- the " + " between the objectX-valueX groups is the operator "accrue”. It adds the number of time a group is present in the region. In some cases the adding step is weighted with each group having a different weight.
- stepl in section 1 above by:
- the best method depends on the way the computation is carried out and what tools are available in the computing environment. Can all the knowledge items be processed in one step (this can be quite efficient), or does one need to take each knowledge item in the knowledge base one after the other (this can be quite slow).
- the specificity of a compatible knowledge item (or region) with respect to an enquiry is defined as the number of objects in the region divided by the number of attributes in the enquiry.
- Undetermined knowledge items can be calculated in two ways.
- Sections 1 and 2 above deal with questions which allow users to define (usually select) a single value or range. There are situations where users may wish to define or select more than one value. This section deals with the changes that are required to knowledge processing to deal with such situations.
- Section 1, step 1 does not need to be modified
- Section 4 does not need to be modified
- Section 5 does not need to be modified
- step 2 Modification to Section 1 , step 2:
- At present step 2 identifies the regions (or knowledge items) in the candidate list that can be ruled-out. This is done by identifying the regions in which one object (question) is present in the source region of the knowledge item but with the wrong value (that is, the value given in the answer to the question in not part of the region). To take account of the multiple values, this needs to be changed to: identify the regions in which one object (question) is present in the source region of the knowledge item but with not even one of the values selected is part of the region.
- objectN ¬ objectN- valueN,l object_N-valueN,2 objectN-valueN,M )
- objectl is present in the candidate region and not one of the values selected in the enquiry is present in the candidate region, or object2 is present in the candidate region and not one of the values selected in the enquiry is present in the candidate region, or ... objectN is present in the candidate region and not one of the values selected in the enquiry is present in the candidate region
- N the objects specified as part of the enquiry
- the knowledge base is made of knowledge items, each comprising a set of objects that are used to define their regions in the source context.
- the issue is to ensure that at least one question is asked about each knowledge item, so that the GKMS, using the answer given by the user, can determine whether the region (that is, the knowledge item) is ruled-out, undetermined or compatible. (If the region has a single object, then one question suffices to determine whether the knowledge item is ruled-out or compatible. If the region has more than one object, then, on the basis of one question, the GKMS can only determine whether the knowledge item is ruled-out or is undetermined. However, by asking further questions, the final status of the knowledge item can be ascertained.) Procedure for questions selection:
- the best first question to ask (that is, the objects in the source context to select as first question) can be determined by calculating the number of knowledge items each object in the source context belongs to, and to order these objects in descending order. The object that appears in the largest number of regions is the best question to ask. Asking this question accounts for all the knowledge items the object corresponding to the question belongs to.
- the second best question to ask can be determined as follows: take the set of knowledge items not accounted for by the first question and cany out the process described in the previous paragraph.
- the next best questions can be determined by repeating this process, until all the knowledge items in the database have been accounted for. It may happen that there are too many independent questions to account for the knowledge base (that is, to reach all the knowledge items in the knowledge base). In this case one can define a new object in the source context that can become a member of a number of (perhaps all) knowledge items (that is, it belongs to their regions), with the knowledge items being grouped according to the values that this object can take. This one object now accounts for a large number of knowledge items. For example, in a knowledge base for trouble-shooting a car, there may be many unrelated questions about the electrical aspects of the car.
- Questions presentation The first few best questions are presented on the first screen. If there too many questions to fit on one screen, then the next best questions can be asked on the second or third screens, in addition to any supplementary questions raised by the answers to the questions asked so far.
- the system behaviour is specified by considering the state the system is in and in taking actions based on this state.
- the state of the system can be included as part of the source space and the outcomes that manipulate the state of the system can be part of the destination space.
- the system behaviour can be specified using a separate module that has as source space a subset of the source space mentioned above and as destination space a subset of the destination space mentioned above.
- the system behaviour module enables the expert to define the behaviour of the system it is attached to. It offers an alternative way to implement interactive processing, where the system decides which questions to ask next, in which the expert specifies what the system should do under defined conditions.
- the system behaviour module is optional.
- the system behaviour module is in an elementaiy GKMS module which consists of the same source space as that of the system it is attached to and a different destination space.
- the state of the system is described as in the elementary GKMS module, using regions attached to outcomes of specified behaviours, the destination space.
- the destination space specifies behaviour options for the system and has the same attributes or objects as the source space but with different possible values for actions specification, and some other actions as well.
- Table 9 shows the destination space of a behaviour module. Table 9: S stem behaviour destination s ace
- Specify state (specify input and/or output states or ranges)
- Overlap can be in the source space or in the destination space. Overlap happens when a region contains part of another region. Sub-region is a special case of overlapping regions in which one region contains the whole of another region.
- Table 10 Meaning of 'overlap'
- Overlap can be checked at any time by the user but can also be checked automatically whenever a new knowledge is defined or an existing knowledge item is modified, that is, whenever the knowledge base is modified.
- knowledge items are certified with respect to explicit source and destination contexts.
- knowledge items can still be used as long as their context is made explicit to the users.
- the knowledge items may need to be re-certified by experts. The expert may need to modify some knowledge items before re- certification.
- GKMS model and which are both computationally effective as well as user friendly.
- the implementation is designed to enable non-computer specialists to build and use knowledge systems.
- Users are presented with a blank context, or a context with one or two objects in it as examples. Users can then:
- mappings definition Knowledge Acquisition Knowledge acquisition is also referred to as mappings definition.
- mapping definition process is to define a situation or problem in the source context and then to specify the outcome corresponding to the problem.
- An alternative way is to define a solution which is known to be useful or relevant to the domain of discourse and then to specify the regions which determine when this outcome is applicable. In practice the two approaches can often be merged.
- Steps 1 and 2 can be interchanged. At any stage in the process it is possible to go from any step to any other step.
- GKMS presents a list of unanswered queries to a domain expert
- GKMS presents the destination context (Dconl). Depending on the size of the display screen the two forms Sconl and Dconl can be shown simultaneously. Dconl is editable.
- the expert can: a) go back to the Dconl to inspect or edit the solution just defined, b) press "next” to continue, or c) press "cancel” to abort the mapping process. • Pressing "next” allows the knowledge item (or mapping) to be saved.
- GKMS presents the mapping form (Mform) which enables the expert to enter the title for the mapping and a summary. Only the title is mandatory. When finished the option is to press “next” or “back” or “cancel”. • With “back” the expert can go back to the previous display. "Cancel” aborts the knowledge mapping process.
- GKMS presents a list of unanswered queries to a domain expert 2.
- the domain expert inspects the enquiry
- mappings may have different source and destination contexts.
- the acquisition process for variable contexts builds on the acquisition process in a fixed context described above.
- the extra or modified steps are shown below in italic. 1.
- GKMS presents a list of unanswered queries to a domain expert
- the instruction on Sconl is: "please inspect the enquiry and when ready press “next" to answer it". Sconl cannot be edited.
- the enquiry may be accompanied by a message from the user who filed the enquiry. The message may describe the enquiry more specifically or in more details (see “unanswered or poorly answered enquiries").
- Sconl has an additional button "edit context” pressing "edit context” allows Sconl to be edited (the enquiry cannot be modified, the attributes in the enquiry cannot be deselected -the deselect option is added to Sconl, new attributes can be added. - see point 4b below for details.
- Dconl the destination context
- Sconl the two forms Sconl and Dconl can be shown simultaneously.
- Dconl is editable.
- the instruction on Dconl is: "please enter the solution to the enquiry by specifying the relevant attributes and providing explanations for your answers.
- Dconl has one additional button labelled "add new attribute”. Reducing the context
- Scon2 is identical to Sconl except that it can be edited.
- the instruction on Scon2 is: "Generalise the enquiiy if possible by defining a region "around" the enquiry for which the answer specified on the previous screen applies”.
- Source context Scon2 corresponds to considering fewer attributes for defining the enquiry and accepting fewer attribute which are not specified in the enquiiy (that is, which do not play a role in the definition of the enquiry) .
- Enlarging Scon2 corresponds to adding new attributes for enquiry definition and for specifying which of these attributes do not play a role in the enquiry.
- Scon2 has one additional button labelled "add new attribute”. Reducing the context
- the expert can deselect some of these attributes by "unchecking" it (each attribute can have a check box for selection purposes for example).
- the expert can: a) go back to the Dconl to inspect or edit the solution just defined, b) press "next” to continue, or c) press "cancel” to abort the mapping process. • Pressing "next” allows the knowledge item (or mapping) to be saved.
- GKMS presents the mapping form (Mform) which enables the expert to enter the title for the mapping and a summary. Only the title is mandatory. When finished the option is to press “next” or “back” or “cancel”. • With “back” the expert can go back to the previous display. "Cancel” aborts the knowledge mapping process.
- the access process can be triggered by a user who defines an enquiry or by a system enquiry, that is, an enquiry specified by values produced by another package or process in a computer system.
- access can be by presentation to a user on a screen, for explanation mappings, or by running some processes or modules, for action mappings.
- the way the final results are produced and presented to users is under the control of the processes or modules in the outcomes.
- Weight of each source attribute weights may not all be equal.
- For definite and candidate knowledge items proportion of attributes in the enquiry which are satisfied by the region attributes; that is attributes belonging to the region of the knowledge item. 3.
- For definite and candidate knowledge items proportion of the attributes in the source context which belong to the region of a candidate knowledge item.
- Na(i,r,q) number of attributes in the region r of a knowledge item which belong to the enquiry q
- a simple implementation of this ranking is the number of attributes in the region.
- Knowledge items which are found to be compatible with the enquiry and which have larger numbers of attributes are more specific than knowledge items with few attributes in their regions.
- Na(i,s) number of attributes i in the region r of a knowledge item
- Na(i,r,q) number of attributes in the region r of a knowledge item which belong to the enquiry q
- a relevance ranking can also include the probability or reliability level p3 that the outcome of a knowledge item solves the situations that can be described in its region.
- p3 the probability or reliability level
- Fuzzy logic principles can also be included in GKMS. For example, a query can cover several overlapping regions of several knowledge items.
- outcomes can overlap.
- the impact on relevance can be calculated taking into account the overlaps and the weights of the attributes and similar considerations above.
- Unanswered Or Poorly Answered Enquiries An unanswered enquiry has no compatible mappings and therefore no outcomes.
- a poorly answered enquiry can be detected in several ways, which can be specified by users or domain experts:
- GKMS deals with unanswered or poorly answered enquiries by referring them to an expert who can then add new knowledge in the GKMS to: a) answer this specific enquiry, and b) answer any future enquiry which falls within the region of the newly created knowledge item.
- this tool detects which other knowledge items or mappings in the GKMS overlap with it.
- the overlap can be in the regions of the mappings or in their outcomes.
- This tool enables the domain expert to check that overlapping knowledge items are compatible. With overlapping regions, an enquiry in the overlapping part or the regions will produce more than one outcome (one outcome per overlapping region). These outcomes need to be compatible (that is, not contradictory) for the system to provide meaningful results.
- the domain expert can determine which conditions (i.e. regions) produce these outcomes and determine whether these different conditions are not mutually exclusive or contradictory for example.
- the process for region overlap detection is as follows:
- the search for knowledge item (the same search as when searching for outcomes compatible with an enquiry; it searches for knowledge items with regions which are compatible with the enquiry).
- the reference knowledge item is not included in the list of knowledge items searched.
- the GKMS search engine retrieves and presents the knowledge items with outcomes which are definite or candidates. This is different from a normal search in which the system only presents the outcomes).
- the process for outcome overlap detection is as follows: 1. The expert selects which knowledge item to use as reference for detecting overlaps. 2. When the expert click the button "detect overlap", the GKMS:
- GKMS Transforms this outcome (or region in the destination space) into an enquiry (that is, GKMS displays it in the enquiry specification environment).
- - Activates the search for knowledge item (the same search as when searching for outcomes compatible with an enquiry; it searches for knowledge items with outcomes (not regions in the source space as in a normal search) which are compatible with the enquiry).
- the reference knowledge item is not included in the list of knowledge items searched. 3.
- the GKMS search engine retrieves and presents the knowledge items which are definite or candidates. This is different from a normal search in which the system only presents the outcomes).
- the GKMS presents the expert with the source and destination contexts.
- the expert defines an query in these contexts by specifying values for attributes in one or both of the contexts.
- the search algorithm combines the two searches described above, that is the GKMS searches for both region and outcome overlaps. 4.
- the GKMS presents the knowledge items retrieved.
- the expert can then inspect and edit these knowledge items.
- the expert can inspect the list of knowledge items or mappings in the GKMS with the author status, date defined, and date deactivated (if appropriate) for each item.
- the domain experts first decide the type of application, such as a system for the discharge of effluents in a river. Once the type of applications is decided, the domain experts must specify the problem space and the solution space.
- Problem space specification consists of the identification of all the key factors (or attributes) that enter into the definition of an enquiry related to the application field.
- key factors could be: amount and concentration of a restricted substance in the effluent to be discharged and frequency of discharge.
- Solution space specification consists of the identification of the components that could be used to define an outcome. In our example, it could include discharge. One can expect that some new factors will have to be added to the problem space and new components to the solution space. Alterations to either the problem or the solution space may need to be done.
- An example of a rule might be: IF ((effluent type is organic substance or pesticide or weedicide) OR (effluent type is pesticide)
- Figures 10 and 11 show that a significant part of the system relates to the database management. It is therefore natural to use a database management system as part of the development and implementation tools.
- the tools used were Microsoft Access and Microsoft Visual Basic. Other tools such as Lotus Notes or Internet technology can be used.
Abstract
Description
Claims
Priority Applications (3)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
CA002334944A CA2334944A1 (en) | 1998-06-18 | 1999-06-18 | Generic knowledge management system |
AU44918/99A AU750555B2 (en) | 1998-06-18 | 1999-06-18 | Generic knowledge management system |
EP99927601A EP1095342A4 (en) | 1998-06-18 | 1999-06-18 | Generic knowledge management system |
Applications Claiming Priority (2)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
AUPP4164A AUPP416498A0 (en) | 1998-06-18 | 1998-06-18 | Generic knowledge management system |
AUPP4164 | 1998-06-18 |
Publications (1)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
WO1999066420A1 true WO1999066420A1 (en) | 1999-12-23 |
Family
ID=3808409
Family Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
PCT/AU1999/000501 WO1999066420A1 (en) | 1998-06-18 | 1999-06-18 | Generic knowledge management system |
Country Status (4)
Country | Link |
---|---|
EP (1) | EP1095342A4 (en) |
AU (1) | AUPP416498A0 (en) |
CA (1) | CA2334944A1 (en) |
WO (1) | WO1999066420A1 (en) |
Cited By (3)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
WO2002007087A2 (en) * | 2000-07-13 | 2002-01-24 | Clicksoftware Technologies Ltd. | A method and system for sharing knowledge |
WO2003021469A1 (en) * | 2001-09-03 | 2003-03-13 | Paul Guignard | Networked knowledge management and learning |
WO2007094596A2 (en) * | 2006-02-13 | 2007-08-23 | Dongman Shin | Knowledge auction system and method |
Citations (5)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US4930071A (en) * | 1987-06-19 | 1990-05-29 | Intellicorp, Inc. | Method for integrating a knowledge-based system with an arbitrary database system |
US5526516A (en) * | 1990-08-29 | 1996-06-11 | Hitachi, Ltd. | Knowledge data assimilation method and system |
US5546507A (en) * | 1993-08-20 | 1996-08-13 | Unisys Corporation | Apparatus and method for generating a knowledge base |
US5715371A (en) * | 1996-05-31 | 1998-02-03 | Lucent Technologies Inc. | Personal computer-based intelligent networks |
US5809493A (en) * | 1995-12-14 | 1998-09-15 | Lucent Technologies Inc. | Knowledge processing system employing confidence levels |
-
1998
- 1998-06-18 AU AUPP4164A patent/AUPP416498A0/en not_active Abandoned
-
1999
- 1999-06-18 WO PCT/AU1999/000501 patent/WO1999066420A1/en not_active Application Discontinuation
- 1999-06-18 CA CA002334944A patent/CA2334944A1/en not_active Abandoned
- 1999-06-18 EP EP99927601A patent/EP1095342A4/en not_active Withdrawn
Patent Citations (5)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US4930071A (en) * | 1987-06-19 | 1990-05-29 | Intellicorp, Inc. | Method for integrating a knowledge-based system with an arbitrary database system |
US5526516A (en) * | 1990-08-29 | 1996-06-11 | Hitachi, Ltd. | Knowledge data assimilation method and system |
US5546507A (en) * | 1993-08-20 | 1996-08-13 | Unisys Corporation | Apparatus and method for generating a knowledge base |
US5809493A (en) * | 1995-12-14 | 1998-09-15 | Lucent Technologies Inc. | Knowledge processing system employing confidence levels |
US5715371A (en) * | 1996-05-31 | 1998-02-03 | Lucent Technologies Inc. | Personal computer-based intelligent networks |
Non-Patent Citations (1)
Title |
---|
See also references of EP1095342A4 * |
Cited By (6)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
WO2002007087A2 (en) * | 2000-07-13 | 2002-01-24 | Clicksoftware Technologies Ltd. | A method and system for sharing knowledge |
WO2002007087A3 (en) * | 2000-07-13 | 2003-03-27 | Clicksoftware Technologies Ltd | A method and system for sharing knowledge |
US7565338B2 (en) | 2000-07-13 | 2009-07-21 | Clicksoftware Technologies Ltd. | Method and system for sharing knowledge |
WO2003021469A1 (en) * | 2001-09-03 | 2003-03-13 | Paul Guignard | Networked knowledge management and learning |
WO2007094596A2 (en) * | 2006-02-13 | 2007-08-23 | Dongman Shin | Knowledge auction system and method |
WO2007094596A3 (en) * | 2006-02-13 | 2009-08-20 | Dongman Shin | Knowledge auction system and method |
Also Published As
Publication number | Publication date |
---|---|
EP1095342A1 (en) | 2001-05-02 |
EP1095342A4 (en) | 2007-10-17 |
CA2334944A1 (en) | 1999-12-23 |
AUPP416498A0 (en) | 1998-07-09 |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
El-Najdawi et al. | Expert support systems: integrating AI technologies | |
US6081798A (en) | Object oriented case-based reasoning framework mechanism | |
US9009085B2 (en) | Integrated automatic user support and assistance | |
Colucci et al. | A formal approach to ontology-based semantic match of skills descriptions. | |
US4866634A (en) | Data-driven, functional expert system shell | |
Fang et al. | A decision support system for interactive decision making-Part I: model formulation | |
Bendakir et al. | Using association rules for course recommendation | |
US7333970B2 (en) | Inference machine | |
Logan et al. | Creativity and design as exploration | |
US20070112609A1 (en) | Methods and apparatus to incorporate user feedback during planning | |
JP2006185458A (en) | Information processing system | |
EP1012755A2 (en) | A method and a computer system for interactive configuration | |
Banerjee et al. | Model type selection in an integrated DSS environment | |
EP0915422B1 (en) | Expert system | |
JP2000339351A (en) | System for identifying selectively related database record | |
Kessentini et al. | Semi-automated metamodel/model co-evolution: a multi-level interactive approach | |
US20050278340A1 (en) | Problem solving assistant | |
Chen | A problem-solving approach to product design using decision tree induction based on intuitionistic fuzzy | |
EP1095342A1 (en) | Generic knowledge management system | |
AU750555B2 (en) | Generic knowledge management system | |
Aksit et al. | Deferring elimination of design alternatives in object‐oriented methods | |
Mookerjee et al. | Redesigning case retrieval to reduce information acquisition costs | |
White et al. | A user preference guided approach to conflict resolution in rule-based expert systems | |
Gilmore et al. | A comprehensive evaluation of expert system tools | |
Raphael et al. | Indexing and retrieval of cases in a case-based design system |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
AK | Designated states |
Kind code of ref document: A1 Designated state(s): AE AL AM AT AU AZ BA BB BG BR BY CA CH CN CU CZ DE DK EE ES FI GB GD GE GH GM HR HU ID IL IN IS JP KE KG KP KR KZ LC LK LR LS LT LU LV MD MG MK MN MW MX NO NZ PL PT RO RU SD SE SG SI SK SL TJ TM TR TT UA UG US UZ VN YU ZA ZW |
|
AL | Designated countries for regional patents |
Kind code of ref document: A1 Designated state(s): GH GM KE LS MW SD SL SZ UG ZW AM AZ BY KG KZ MD RU TJ TM AT BE CH CY DE DK ES FI FR GB GR IE IT LU MC NL PT SE BF BJ CF CG CI CM GA GN GW ML MR NE SN TD TG |
|
121 | Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application | ||
DFPE | Request for preliminary examination filed prior to expiration of 19th month from priority date (pct application filed before 20040101) | ||
ENP | Entry into the national phase |
Ref document number: 2334944 Country of ref document: CA |
|
WWE | Wipo information: entry into national phase |
Ref document number: 44918/99 Country of ref document: AU |
|
WWE | Wipo information: entry into national phase |
Ref document number: 1999927601 Country of ref document: EP |
|
REG | Reference to national code |
Ref country code: DE Ref legal event code: 8642 |
|
WWP | Wipo information: published in national office |
Ref document number: 1999927601 Country of ref document: EP |
|
WWE | Wipo information: entry into national phase |
Ref document number: 09720005 Country of ref document: US |
|
NENP | Non-entry into the national phase |
Ref country code: CA |
|
WWG | Wipo information: grant in national office |
Ref document number: 44918/99 Country of ref document: AU |
|
WWW | Wipo information: withdrawn in national office |
Ref document number: 1999927601 Country of ref document: EP |