DOCSLIB.ORG

Structured and Knowledge Based System Design

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Structured and Knowledge Based System Design MODERN THEORY OF INFORMATION - STRUCTURED AND KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEM DESIGN SAID KRAYEM ZLÍN 2016 ABSTRACT This keynote will address the challenges in the digital engineering field with a specific focus on analyzing security and harnessing the gaps that exist and the progress that needs to be made in the coming decade. The state–based Event-B formal method relies on the concept of correct step-by-step development ensured by discharging corresponding proof obligations. The CommonKADS methodology is a collection of structured methods for building knowledge-based systems. A key component of CommonKADS is the library of generic inference models which can by applied to tasks of specified types. These generic models can either be used as frameworks for knowledge acquisition or to verify the completness of models developed by an analysis of the domain. Key words: System, Knowledge Representation, Expert System Design, Knowledge-based Systems, Knowledge Engineering, Formal Methods, events, action, machine and context ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The most important person I would like to thank is my room-mate Susan. Having Susan as a room-mate gives you the freedom to pursue your individual interest. Furthermore, she gives you the feeling that you can do something useful. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 8 1 SYSTEM DEFINITION .............................................................................................. 9 1.1 SYSTEM ENGINEERING .......................................................................................... 13 1.1.1 RESOURCES ...................................................................................................... 15 1.1.2 PROCEDURES .................................................................................................... 16 1.1.3 DATA/INFORMATION ......................................................................................... 16 1.1.4 INTERMEDIATE DATA ......................................................................................... 16 1.1.5 PROCESSES ....................................................................................................... 16 1.1.6 OBJECTIVE........................................................................................................ 17 1.1.7 STANDARDS ....................................................................................................... 17 1.1.8 ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................. 17 1.1.9 FEED-BACK ...................................................................................................... 17 1.1.10 BOUNDARIES AND INTERFACES ........................................................................ 18 1.2 PHYSICAL AND ABSTRACT SYSTEMS .................................................................... 18 1.3 OPEN/CLOSED SYSTEMS .............................................................................................. 18 2 INFORMATION SYSTEMS .................................................................................... 19 2.1 TRANSACTION PROCESSING SYSTEMS .................................................................. 22 2.2 MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS ............................................................... 22 2.3 DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS ............................................................................... 22 2.3.1 DECISION TREE ................................................................................................. 23 2.3.2 DRAWING DECISION TREES ............................................................................... 23 2.3.3 EVAULATING DECISION TREES ........................................................................... 24 2.4 DECISION TREE BUILDING BLOCKS ........................................................................ 26 2.4.1 DECISION RULES ............................................................................................... 26 2.4.2 DECISION TREES USING FLOWCHART SYMBOLS .................................................... 27 2.4.3 ANALYSIS EXAMPLE ........................................................................................... 27 2.4.4 INFLUENCE DIAGRAM ........................................................................................ 28 2.4.5 APPLICABILITY IN VALUE INFORMATION .......................................................... 29 2.5 CONCLUSION — ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES ......................................... 30 2.6 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS ................................................................. 31 3 KNOWLEDGE BASE ............................................................................................... 31 3.1 KNOWLEDGE BASE REASONING ............................................................................. 34 3.2 USE OF LOGIC ........................................................................................................ 35 3.3 REASONING UNDER UNCERTAINTY ........................................................................ 36 3.4 TYPES OF REASONING SYSTEM .............................................................................. 37 3.4.1 CONSTRAINT SOLVERS ....................................................................................... 37 3.4.2 THEOREM PROVERS ........................................................................................... 37 3.4.3 LOGIC PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 37 3.4.4 RULE ENGINES .................................................................................................. 38 3.4.5 DEDUCTIVE CLASSIFIER ..................................................................................... 38 3.4.6 MACHINE LEARNING SYSTEMS ............................................................................ 38 3.4.7 PROCEDURAL REASONING SYSTEMS .................................................................... 39 3.4.8 CASE-BASED REASONING ................................................................................... 39 3.4.9 CASE-BASED REASONING AND LOGICAL REASONING ............................................ 45 3.4.10 COMMON-SENSE REASONING ............................................................................. 46 4 KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS ........................................................................ 47 4.1 KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEM STRUCTURE ........................................................... 49 4.2 KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING: PRINCIPLES AND METHODS ....................................... 50 4.3 KADS: A MODELING APPROACH TO KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING .......................... 50 4.4 THE COMMONKADS METHODOLOGY .................................................................. 51 4.5 MODELS SET ......................................................................................................... 52 4.5.1 ORGANIZATION MODEL ...................................................................................... 52 4.5.2 TASK MODEL ..................................................................................................... 52 4.5.3 AGENT MODEL .................................................................................................. 53 4.5.4 COMMUNICATION MODEL .................................................................................. 53 4.5.5 KNOWLEDGE MODEL ......................................................................................... 53 4.5.6 DESIGN MODEL ................................................................................................. 53 4.5.7 DOMAIN KNOWLEDGE ....................................................................................... 54 4.5.8 INFERENCE KNOWLEDGE ................................................................................... 54 4.5.9 TASK KNOWLEDGE ............................................................................................ 54 4.5.10 PROBLEM-SOLVING METHODS .......................................................................... 54 4.5.11 STRATEGIC KNOWLEDGE .................................................................................. 54 4.6 ROLES ................................................................................................................... 54 4.6.1 KNOWLEDGE PROVIDER/SPECIALIST ................................................................... 55 4.6.2 KNOWLEDGE ENGINEER/ANALYST....................................................................... 55 4.6.3 KNOWLEDGE SYSTEM DEVELOPER ...................................................................... 55 4.6.4 KNOWLEDGE USER ............................................................................................ 56 4.6.5 PROJECT MANAGER ........................................................................................... 56 4.6.6 KNOWLEDGE MANAGER ..................................................................................... 56 4.6.7 VIEWS ON KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION ................................................................ 56 4.6.8 PRINCIPLE 1: MULTIPLE MODELS ..................................................................... 58 4.6.9 ORGANIZATIONAL MODEL, APPLICATION MODEL AND TASK MODEL ...................... 59 4.6.10 MODEL OF COOPERATION ................................................................................. 62 4.6.11 MODEL OF EXPERTISE ....................................................................................... 62
Load more

Recommended publications
  • IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology 364
    IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology 364 Editor-in-Chief A. Joe Turner, Seneca, SC, USA Editorial Board Foundations of Computer Science Mike Hinchey, Lero, Limerick, Ireland Software: Theory and Practice Bertrand Meyer, ETH Zurich, Switzerland Education Arthur Tatnall, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia Information Technology Applications Ronald Waxman, EDA Standards Consulting, Beachwood, OH, USA Communication Systems Guy Leduc, Université de Liège, Belgium System Modeling and Optimization Jacques Henry, Université de Bordeaux, France Information Systems Jan Pries-Heje, Roskilde University, Denmark Relationship between Computers and Society Jackie Phahlamohlaka, CSIR, Pretoria, South Africa Computer Systems Technology Paolo Prinetto, Politecnico di Torino, Italy Security and Privacy Protection in Information Processing Systems Kai Rannenberg, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany Artificial Intelligence Tharam Dillon, Curtin University, Bentley, Australia Human-Computer Interaction Annelise Mark Pejtersen, Center of Cognitive Systems Engineering, Denmark Entertainment Computing Ryohei Nakatsu, National University of Singapore IFIP – The International Federation for Information Processing IFIP was founded in 1960 under the auspices of UNESCO, following the First World Computer Congress held in Paris the previous year. An umbrella organi- zation for societies working in information processing, IFIP’s aim is two-fold: to support information processing within ist member countries and to encourage technology transfer to developing nations. As ist mission statement clearly states, IFIP’s mission is to be the leading, truly international, apolitical organization which encourages and assists in the development, ex- ploitation and application of information technology for the benefit of all people. IFIP is a non-profitmaking organization, run almost solely by 2500 volunteers. It operates through a number of technical committees, which organize events and publications.
    [Show full text]
  • Time Series Data Analysis Using Probabilistic and Neural Network
    Time series data analysis using probabilistic and neural network Chiu-Che Tseng1 1Department of Computer Science and Information Systems Texas A&M University – Commerce, TX 75429, U.S.A. Abstract We explored several ways to reduce the complexity of the investment decision deliberation that might cause the investors to lose money under urgent Artificial intelligence decision support system is situations, and, at the same time, to provide the always a popular topic in providing the human user highest quality investment recommendations possible. with an optimized decision recommendation when For portfolio management, Strong [16], Reilly operating under uncertainty in complex environments. and Norton [13] and Jones [9] brought several The particular focus of our discussion is to compare traditional portfolio management strategies. And different methods of artificial intelligence decision Sycara, et al. [17] focused on using distributed agents support systems in the investment domain – the goal to manage investment portfolios. Their system of investment decision-making is to select an optimal deployed a group of agents with different portfolio that satisfies the investor’s objective, or, in functionality and coordinated them under case-based other words, to maximize the investment returns situations. They modeled the user, task and situation under the constraints given by investors. In this study as different cases, so their system activated the we applied several artificial intelligence systems like distributed agents for information gathering, filtering Influence Diagram (a special type of Bayesian and processing based on the given case. Their network) and Neural Network to get experimental approach mainly focused on portfolio monitoring comparison analysis to facilitate users to intelligently issues and has no mechanism to deal with uncertainty.
    [Show full text]
  • Probability Elicitation in Influence Diagram Modeling by Using Interval Probability
    International Journal of Intelligence Science, 2012, 2, 89-95 http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ijis.2012.24012 Published Online October 2012 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ijis) Probability Elicitation in Influence Diagram Modeling by Using Interval Probability Xiaoxuan Hu1,2, He Luo1,2, Chao Fu1,2 1School of Management, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei, China 2Key Laboratory of Process Optimization and Intelligent Decision-Making, Ministry of Education, Hefei, China Email: [email protected] Received May 29, 2012; revised July 31, 2012; accepted August 10, 2012 ABSTRACT In decision modeling with influence diagrams, the most challenging task is probability elicitation from domain experts. It is usually very difficult for experts to directly assign precise probabilities to chance nodes. In this paper, we propose an approach to elicit probability effectively by using the concept of interval probability (IP). During the elicitation process, a group of experts assign intervals to probabilities instead of assigning exact values. Then the intervals are combined and converted into the point valued probabilities. The detailed steps of the elicitation process are given and illustrated by constructing the influence diagram for employee recruitment decision for a China’s IT Company. The proposed approach provides a convenient and comfortable way for experts to assess probabilities. It is useful in influ- ence diagrams modeling as well as in other subjective probability elicitation situations. Keywords: Influence Diagram; Probability Elicitation; Interval Probability; Decision-Making 1. Introduction To deal with the imprecision and inconsistence of sub- jective probabilities, quite a few methods are developed An influence diagram (ID) [1] is a directed acyclic graph to guide experts correctly giving probabilities, such as for modeling and solving decision problems under un- using visual tools like probability scale [8], probability certainty.
    [Show full text]
  • COMPUTER BASED PRESCRIPTIVE DECISION SUPPORT Ari Riabacke
    COMPUTER BASED PRESCRIPTIVE DECISION SUPPORT Ari Riabacke Department of Information technology and Media Fibre Science and Communication Network Mid Sweden University R–02–33 ISSN 1650-5387-2002:10 September 2002 Licentiate Thesis Department of Information technology and Media Mid Sweden University R-02-33 ISSN 1650-5387 2002:10 © 2002 Ari Riabacke Printed in Sweden 2002, Tryckeriet, Mid Sweden University I am based on a true story. To my wife Malin, our children Mi and Philippa and to Isak the proud big brother. Abstract The overall aim of this thesis is to study in what type of decision situations (involving risk and uncertainty) managers encounter problems and pitfalls, and to propose formalised methods for handling such situations. Traditionally, at least from an academic perspective, utility theory and the principle of maximising the expected utility has had a great influence on decision-making in such contexts. Even though this principle is often useful when evaluating a decision situation, it is not necessarily, despite what has often been claimed, the definition of rationality. And other approaches are definitely worth considering. The thesis has three main components. It develops a compilation of normative, descriptive and prescriptive theories within the area of risk taking and decision-making. Thereafter follows an empirical study examining some aspects of how managers define risk, how they handle risk, how they make risky decisions and how the organisational context affects the decision- making processes. This part contains an analysis of how managers make their choices from different risky prospects. Taking this into account, the third part brings attention to some of the problematic features of evaluation through utility theory and tries to constructively relax the demand for precise data in situations where only imprecise data are available.
    [Show full text]
  • Applications of Decision and Utility Theory in Multi-Agent Systems
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Computer Science and Engineering, Department CSE Technical reports of 9-13-2004 Applications of Decision and Utility Theory in Multi-Agent Systems Xin Li University of Nebraska, [email protected] Leen-Kiat Soh University of Nebraska, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/csetechreports Part of the Computer Sciences Commons Li, Xin and Soh, Leen-Kiat, "Applications of Decision and Utility Theory in Multi-Agent Systems" (2004). CSE Technical reports. 85. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/csetechreports/85 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Computer Science and Engineering, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in CSE Technical reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Computer Science and Engineering Technical Report TR-UNL-CSE-2004-0014 Issued 9/13/2004 Applications of Decision and Utility Theory in Multi-Agent Systems Xin Li, Leen-Kiat Soh Department of Computer Science and Engineering University of Nebraska–Lincoln {xinli, lksoh}@cse.unl.edu September 2004 Abstract This report reviews the applications of decision-related theories (decision theory, utility theory, probability theory, and game theory) in various aspects of multi-agent systems. In recent years, multi-agent systems (MASs) have become a highly active research area as multi-agent systems have a wide range of applications. However, most of real-world environments are very complex and of uncertainty. An agent’s knowledge about the world is rather incomplete and uncertain.
    [Show full text]