DOCSLIB.ORG

Methodologies and Technologies for Rule-Based Systems Design and Implementation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Methodologies and Technologies for Rule-Based Systems Design and Implementation Methodologies and Technologies for Rule-Based Systems Design and Implementation. Towards Hybrid Knowledge Engineering. Grzegorz J. Nalepa1 Institute of Automatics, AGH University of Science and Technology, Al. Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Kraków, Poland, [email protected] Summary. A practical design of non-trivial rule-based systems requires a system- atic, structured and consistent approach. The paper focuses on selected issues in RBS knowledge engineering. Some ideas on combining knowledge engineering with software engineering are discussed. Furthermore, results of RBS design tools sur- vey are enclosed. In the paper an original design and implementation methodology for RBS is also presented. It has been developed in the Mirella project. It is a top-down hierarchical design methodology, based on new knowledge representation methods (XTT and ARD), on-line logical system analysis in Prolog, and XML- based knowledge encoding. Basing on the experience with XTT-based methodology, as well as tools supporting it, the paper discusses an extended hierarchical design methodology for RBS. A preview of the Hekate project, which aims at developing a hybrid knowledge engineering methodology is also given. 1 Introduction Knowledge-based systems (KBS) are an important class of intelligent systems originating from the field of Artificial Intelligence [17]. They can be espe- cially useful for solving complex problems in cases where purely algorithmic or mathematical solutions are either unknown or demonstrably inefficient. Building real-life KBS is a complex task. Since their architecture is fun- damental different from classic software, classical software engineering ap- proaches cannot be applied efficiently. Some specific development methodolo- gies, commonly referred to as knowledge engineering, are required. In AI rules are probably the most popular choice for building knowledge- based systems, that is the so-called rule-based expert systems [4, 5, 7]. Rule- based systems (RBS) are used extensively in practical applications, especially in domains such as automatic control, decision support, and system diagnosis. They constitute today one of the most important classes of KBS. 2 Grzegorz J. Nalepa A rule-based expert system consists of a knowledge base and an inference engine. The knowledge engineering process aims at designing and evaluating the knowledge base, and implementing a proper inference engine. The process of building the knowledge base involves the selection of a knowledge repre- sentation method, knowledge acquisition, and possibly low-level knowledge encoding. In order to create an inference engine a reasoning technique must be selected, and the engine has to be programmed. During the engineering process a number of problems occur. Particular problems concern the selection of a knowledge representation formalism as well as the actual design of an appropriate rule base. As the number of rules exceeds even relatively very low quantities, it is hard to keep the rule-base consistent, complete, and correct. These problems are related to knowledge- base verification, validation, and testing [21, 22]. The selection of appropriate software tools and programming languages is non-trivial either. This paper is devoted to discussing the most important differences between knowledge engineering (see Sect. 2) and classic software approaches [19] (see Sect. 3). When it comes to practical system implementation, current RBS development is heavily dependent on software engineering tools, which enforce certain design patterns not suitable for knowledge engineering. This is why the paper aims at identifying possible areas of cooperation between software and knowledge engineering approaches in Sect. 4. Section 5 identifies the most important issues in RBS knowledge engineering process and presents possible approaches. Then in Sect. 6 an overview of selected design and implementation tools is presented. Practical design of non-trivial rule-based systems requires a systematic, structured and consistent approach. In this paper an original design and implementation methodology for rule-based systems is discussed in Sect. 7. It is a top-down hierarchical design methodology, based on new knowledge representation methods (XTT and ARD), on-line logical system analysis in Prolog, and XML-based knowledge encoding. It is supported by a prototype CASE tool called Mirella. Basing on the experience with XTT- based methodology, as well as tools supporting it, in the Sect. 8 an extended hierarchical design methodology for RBS is discussed. At the end a preview of the Hekate project, which aims at developing a hybrid knowledge engineering methodology, is also given. 2 Knowledge Engineering Approach What makes KBS distinctive is the separation of knowledge storage (the knowledge base) from the knowledge processing facilities. In order to store knowledge, KBS use various knowledge representation methods, which are declarative in nature. In case of RBS these are production rules. Specific knowl- edge processing facilities, suitable for specific representation method used, are then selected. In case of RBS these are logic-based inference engines. Methodologies and Technologies for RBS Design and Implementation. 3 The knowledge engineering (KE) process in case of RBS involves two main tasks: knowledge base design, and inference engine implementation. Further- more, some other specific tasks are also required, such as: knowledge base analysis and verification, and inference engine optimization. The performance of a complete RBS should be evaluated and validated. Classic expert systems books [5] represent this process as shown in Fig. 1. While this process is spe- cific to expert systems in general, it is usually similar in case of other KBS. Identification Identify problem Reformulations chararteristics Conceptualization Find concepts Reformulations Requirements representing knowledge VERIFICATION Formalization Concepts Design structure organizing knowledge Redesigns Implementation Formulate rules Structure embodying knowledge Refinements Testing Rules Validate rules organizing knowledge Fig. 1. Classic knowledge engineering process (Liebowitz 1998) What is important about the process, is the fact that it should capture the expert knowledge and represent it in a way that is suitable for processing (this is the task for the knowledge engineer). The actual structure of a KBS does not need to be system specific – it should not „mimic” or model the structure of the real-world problem. However, the KBS should capture and contain the knowledge about the real-world system. The task of the programmers is to develop processing facilities for the knowledge representation. It should be pointed out, that in case of KBS there is no single universal engineering approach, or universal modelling method (such as UML in soft- ware engineering). Different classes of KBS may require a specific approach, see [5, 2, 7, 20]. Having outlined the main aspects of KBS development, it can be discussed how they are related to classic software engineering methods. 4 Grzegorz J. Nalepa 3 Software Engineering Approach Software engineering (SE) is the domain where a number of mature and well- proved design methods exist. They address needs of specific classes of business software. In software engineering the software development process and life cycle is represented by several models. One of the most common is called the waterfall model [19] and is shown in Fig. 2. In this process a number of development roles can be identified: users and/or domain experts, system analysts, programmers, testers, integrators, and end users. What makes this process different from knowledge engineering, is the fact, systems analysts in general try to model the structure of the real-world information system in the structure of computer software system. So the structure of the software corresponds to some respect to the structure of the real-world system. The task of the programmers is to encode and implement the model (which is the result of the system analysis) in some lower-level programming language. The most important difference between software and knowledge engineer- ing, is that the former tries to model how the system works, while the latter tries to capture and represent what is known about the system. Requirements definition System and software design Implementation and unit testing Integration and system testing Operation and maintanance Fig. 2. Classic waterfall software life cycle (Sommerville 2004) 4 Heterogeneous Development Methodology Historically, there has always been a strong feedback between software engi- neering and computer programming tools. At the same time these tools have been strongly determined by the actual architecture of computers themselves. For a number of years there has been a clear trend for the software engineer- ing to become as implementation-independent as possible. Modern software engineering approaches tend to be abstract and conceptual. Methodologies and Technologies for RBS Design and Implementation. 5 On the other hand, knowledge engineering approaches have always been device and implementation-agnostic. The actual implementation of KBS has been based on some high level programming languages such as Lisp or Pro- log. However, modern knowledge engineering tools heavily depend on some common development tools and programming languages, especially when it comes to user interfaces, network communication, etc. It could be said, that these days software engineering becomes more knowledge-based, while knowledge
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arxiv:1910.13561V1 [Cs.LG] 29 Oct 2019 E-Mail: [email protected] M
    Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) A Heuristically Modified FP-Tree for Ontology Learning with Applications in Education Safwan Shatnawi · Mohamed Medhat Gaber ∗ · Mihaela Cocea Received: date / Accepted: date Abstract We propose a heuristically modified FP-Tree for ontology learning from text. Unlike previous research, for concept extraction, we use a regular expression parser approach widely adopted in compiler construction, i.e., deterministic finite automata (DFA). Thus, the concepts are extracted from unstructured documents. For ontology learning, we use a frequent pattern mining approach and employ a rule mining heuristic function to enhance its quality. This process does not rely on predefined lexico-syntactic patterns, thus, it is applicable for different subjects. We employ the ontology in a question-answering system for students' content-related questions. For validation, we used textbook questions/answers and questions from online course forums. Subject experts rated the quality of the system's answers on a subset of questions and their ratings were used to identify the most appropriate automatic semantic text similarity metric to use as a validation metric for all answers. The Latent Semantic Analysis was identified as the closest to the experts' ratings. We compared the use of our ontology with the use of Text2Onto for the question-answering system and found that with our ontology 80% of the questions were answered, while with Text2Onto only 28.4% were answered, thanks to the finer grained hierarchy our approach is able to produce. Keywords Ontologies · Frequent pattern mining · Ontology learning · Question answering · MOOCs S. Shatnawi College of Applied Studies, University of Bahrain, Sakhair Campus, Zallaq, Bahrain E-mail: [email protected] M.
    [Show full text]
  • Building Dialogue Structure from Discourse Tree of a Question
    The Workshops of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence Building Dialogue Structure from Discourse Tree of a Question Boris Galitsky Oracle Corp. Redwood Shores CA USA [email protected] Abstract ed, chat bot’s capability to maintain the cohesive flow, We propose a reasoning-based approach to a dialogue man- style and merits of conversation is an underexplored area. agement for a customer support chat bot. To build a dia- When a question is detailed and includes multiple sen- logue scenario, we analyze the discourse tree (DT) of an ini- tences, there are certain expectations concerning the style tial query of a customer support dialogue that is frequently of an answer. Although a topical agreement between ques- complex and multi-sentence. We then enforce what we call tions and answers have been extensively addressed, a cor- complementarity relation between DT of the initial query respondence in style and suitability for the given step of a and that of the answers, requests and responses. The chat bot finds answers, which are not only relevant by topic but dialogue between questions and answers has not been thor- also suitable for a given step of a conversation and match oughly explored. In this study we focus on assessment of the question by style, argumentation patterns, communica- cohesiveness of question/answer (Q/A) flow, which is im- tion means, experience level and other domain-independent portant for a chat bots supporting longer conversation. attributes. We evaluate a performance of proposed algo- When an answer is in a style disagreement with a question, rithm in car repair domain and observe a 5 to 10% im- a user can find this answer inappropriate even when a topi- provement for single and three-step dialogues respectively, in comparison with baseline approaches to dialogue man- cal relevance is high.
    [Show full text]
  • Problem of Extracting the Knowledge of Experts Fkom the Perspective of Experimental Psychology
    AI Magazine Volume 8 Number 2 (1987) (© AAAI) The ‘Problem of Extracting the Knowledge of Experts fkom the Perspective of Experimental Psychology RobertR.Hoffman or perceptual and conceptual and represent their special knowledge The first step in the development of an problems requiring the skills of . [It] may take several months of the expert system is the extraction and charac- an expert, expertise is rare, the expert’s time and even more of the terization of the knowledge and skills of an expert’s knowledge is extremely system builder’s” (p. 264). Three years expert. This step is widely regarded as the detailed and interconnected, and our later, Duda and Shortliffe (1983) major bottleneck in the system develop- scientific understanding of the echoed this lament: “The identifica- ment process To assist knowledge engi- expert’s perceptual and conceptual tion and encoding of knowledge is one neers and others who might be interested in the development of an expert system, I processes is limited. Research on the of the most complex and arduous offer (1) a working classification of meth- skills of experts in any domain affords tasks encountered in the construction ods for extracting an expert’s knowledge, an excellent opportunity for both of an expert system” (p. 265). (2) some ideas about the types of data that basic and practical experimentation. Some common phrases that occur the methods yield, and (3) a set of criteria My investigations fall on the experi- in the literature are “knowledge acqui- by which the methods can be compared mental psychology side of expert sys- sition is the time-critical component” relative to the needs of the system develop- tem engineering, specifically the prob- (Freiling et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards Unsupervised Knowledge Extraction
    Towards Unsupervised Knowledge Extraction Dorothea Tsatsoua,b, Konstantinos Karageorgosa, Anastasios Dimoua, Javier Carbob, Jose M. Molinab and Petros Darasa aInformation Technologies Institute (ITI), Centre for Research and Technology Hellas (CERTH), 6th km Charilaou-Thermi Road, 57001, Thermi, Thessaloniki, Greece bComputer Science Department, University Carlos III of Madrid, Av. Universidad 30, Leganes, Madrid 28911, Spain Abstract Integration of symbolic and sub-symbolic approaches is rapidly emerging as an Artificial Intelligence (AI) paradigm. This paper presents a proof-of-concept approach towards an unsupervised learning method, based on Restricted Boltzmann Machines (RBMs), for extracting semantic associations among prominent entities within data. Validation of the approach is performed in two datasets that connect lan- guage and vision, namely Visual Genome and GQA. A methodology to formally structure the extracted knowledge for subsequent use through reasoning engines is also offered. Keywords knowledge extraction, unsupervised learning, spectral analysis, formal knowledge representation, symbolic AI, sub-symbolic AI, neuro-symbolic integration 1. Introduction Nowadays, artificial intelligence (AI) is linked mostly to machine learning (ML) solutions, enabling machines to learn from data and subsequently make predictions based on unidentified patterns in data, taking advantage of neural network (NN)-based methods. However, AI is still far from encompassing human-like cognitive capacities, which include not only learning but also understanding1, abstracting, planning, representing knowledge and logically reasoning over it. On the other hand, Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KRR) techniques allow machines to reason about structured knowledge, in order to perform human-like complex problem solving and decision-making. AI foundations propose that all the aforementioned cognitive processes (learning, abstracting, representing, reasoning) need to be integrated under a unified strategy, in order to advance to In A.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontology and Information Systems
    Ontology and Information Systems 1 Barry Smith Philosophical Ontology Ontology as a branch of philosophy is the science of what is, of the kinds and structures of objects, properties, events, processes and relations in every area of reality. ‘Ontology’ is often used by philosophers as a synonym for ‘metaphysics’ (literally: ‘what comes after the Physics’), a term which was used by early students of Aristotle to refer to what Aristotle himself called ‘first philosophy’.2 The term ‘ontology’ (or ontologia) was itself coined in 1613, independently, by two philosophers, Rudolf Göckel (Goclenius), in his Lexicon philosophicum and Jacob Lorhard (Lorhardus), in his Theatrum philosophicum. The first occurrence in English recorded by the OED appears in Bailey’s dictionary of 1721, which defines ontology as ‘an Account of being in the Abstract’. Methods and Goals of Philosophical Ontology The methods of philosophical ontology are the methods of philosophy in general. They include the development of theories of wider or narrower scope and the testing and refinement of such theories by measuring them up, either against difficult 1 This paper is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. BCS-9975557 (“Ontology and Geographic Categories”) and by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation under the auspices of its Wolfgang Paul Program. Thanks go to Thomas Bittner, Olivier Bodenreider, Anita Burgun, Charles Dement, Andrew Frank, Angelika Franzke, Wolfgang Grassl, Pierre Grenon, Nicola Guarino, Patrick Hayes, Kathleen Hornsby, Ingvar Johansson, Fritz Lehmann, Chris Menzel, Kevin Mulligan, Chris Partridge, David W. Smith, William Rapaport, Daniel von Wachter, Chris Welty and Graham White for helpful comments.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontology to Appear in the Encyclopedia of Database Systems, Ling Liu and M
    Ontology to appear in the Encyclopedia of Database Systems, Ling Liu and M. Tamer Özsu (Eds.), Springer-Verlag, 2008. TITLE OF ENTRY Ontology BYLINE Tom Gruber, http://tomgruber.org. Formerly of Stanford University, Intraspect Software, and RealTravel.com. SYNONYMS computational ontology, semantic data model, ontological engineering DEFINITION In the context of computer and information sciences, an ontology defines a set of representational primitives with which to model a domain of knowledge or discourse. The representational primitives are typically classes (or sets), attributes (or properties), and relationships (or relations among class members). The definitions of the representational primitives include information about their meaning and constraints on their logically consistent application. In the context of database systems, ontology can be viewed as a level of abstraction of data models, analogous to hierarchical and relational models, but intended for modeling knowledge about individuals, their attributes, and their relationships to other individuals. Ontologies are typically specified in languages that allow abstraction away from data structures and implementation strategies; in practice, the languages of ontologies are closer in expressive power to first-order logic than languages used to model databases. For this reason, ontologies are said to be at the "semantic" level, whereas database schema are models of data at the "logical" or "physical" level. Due to their independence from lower level data models, ontologies are used for integrating heterogeneous databases, enabling interoperability among disparate systems, and specifying interfaces to independent, knowledge-based services. In the technology stack of the Semantic Web standards [1], ontologies are called out as an explicit layer. There are now standard languages and a variety of commercial and open source tools for creating and working with ontologies.
    [Show full text]
  • Innovations in Knowledge Engineering
    Innovations in Knowledge Engineering Editors Ravi Jain Australia Ajith Abraham U.S.A. Colette Faucher France Berend Jan van der Zwaag The Netherlands Foreword A research text book aims to provide a unique and long lasting statement about the current thinking in a given subject area. This book delivers exactly this in the area of knowledge engineering, i.e., the design and construction of systems that convert data into knowledge. Knowledge is fundamental to intelligent systems, it provides us with the stuff with which we are able to extend the abilities of our minds. It allows us to auto- matically assist humans to manage the world around us. It allows us to build a bet- ter world. Knowledge is gained from data and, as we are all too aware, the amount of data in all forms is growing at a faster rate every year. Unfortunately, this data is often unstructured, noisy, incomplete and uncertain, making our job all the more diffi- cult. Managing this data and turning it into knowledge is a vital endeavour. Unfor- tunately, the knowledge held in the data can be complex, dealing with this com- plexity is still unsolved. We desperately need well principled methods that can be used again and again to reliably engineer systems. Methods that can be applied by software engineers in their every day work to develop powerful systems that will really help people. Pro- viding methods to do this is exactly what this book is about. This book presents a wide range of methods that tackle these issues. It cannot hope to cover all of them, but the areas it has covered are important and timely.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontology for Information Systems (O4IS) Design Methodology Conceptualizing, Designing and Representing Domain Ontologies
    Ontology for Information Systems (O4IS) Design Methodology Conceptualizing, Designing and Representing Domain Ontologies Vandana Kabilan October 2007. A Dissertation submitted to The Royal Institute of Technology in partial fullfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Technology . The Royal Institute of Technology School of Information and Communication Technology Department of Computer and Systems Sciences IV DSV Report Series No. 07–013 ISBN 978–91–7178–752–1 ISSN 1101–8526 ISRN SU–KTH/DSV/R– –07/13– –SE V All knowledge that the world has ever received comes from the mind; the infinite library of the universe is in our own mind. – Swami Vivekananda. (1863 – 1902) Indian spiritual philosopher. The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking. – Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955) German-Swiss-U.S. scientist. Science is a mechanism, a way of trying to improve your knowledge of na- ture. It’s a system for testing your thoughts against the universe, and seeing whether they match. – Isaac Asimov. (1920 – 1992) Russian-U.S. science-fiction author. VII Dedicated to the three KAs of my life: Kabilan, Rithika and Kavin. IX Abstract. Globalization has opened new frontiers for business enterprises and human com- munication. There is an information explosion that necessitates huge amounts of informa- tion to be speedily processed and acted upon. Information Systems aim to facilitate human decision-making by retrieving context-sensitive information, making implicit knowledge ex- plicit and to reuse the knowledge that has already been discovered. A possible answer to meet these goals is the use of Ontology.
    [Show full text]
  • An Ontology-Based Knowledge Management System for the Metal Industry
    An Ontology-based Knowledge Management System for the Metal Industry Sheng-Tun Li Huang-Chih Hsieh I-Wei Sun Department of Information Department of Information Metal Industries Research & Management, National Management, National Development Center Kaohsiung First University of Kaohsiung First University of 1001 Kaonan Highway, Nantz Science Technology Science Technology District, Kaohsiung, 811, Taiwan, 2 Juoyue Rd. Nantz District, 2 Juoyue Rd. Nantz District, R.O.C. Kaohsiung 811, Taiwan, R.O.C. Kaohsiung 811, Taiwan, R.O.C. +886-7-3513121 ext 2360 +886-7-6011000 ext 4111 +886-7-6011000 ext 4111 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] failure of a procedure. These measurements and computations ABSTRACT such as measuring material size, computing machine stress, and Determining definite and consistent measurement and estimating manufacture frequency are usually formalized as computation of materials and operations is of great importance for mathematic models. In reality, each engineer has his (her) own the operation procedures in metal industry. The effectiveness and favorite model in use, and models could be revised or adjusted to efficiency of such decisions are greatly dependent on the domain be more practical and precise according to different requests of understanding and empirical experience of engineers. The engineers whereas adopting appropriate revise or adjustment is complexity and diversity of domain knowledge and terminology is based on the tacit knowledge and empirical experience of the major hurdle for a successful operation procedure. engineers or the related knowledge documents they have on hand. Fortunately, such hurdles can be overcome by the emerging However, with the diversity and complexity of conceptual ontology technology.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Knowledge Engineering
    INTRODUCTION TO KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING COURSE REVIEW Sistem Berbasis Pengetahuan Agenda 2 What is knowledge? Types of knowledge Knowledge engineering Knowledge engineers Philosophical Basis 3 Traditional questions that have been analyzed by philosophers, psychologists, and linguist: What is knowledge? What do people have inside their head when they know something? Is knowledge expressed in words? If so, how could one know things that are easier to do than to say, like tying a shoestring or hitting a baseball? If knowledge is not expressed in words, how can it be transmitted in language? How is knowledge related to the world? What are the relationships between the external world, knowledge in the head, and the language used to express knowledge about the world? Philosophical Basis 4 With the advent of computers, the questions addressed by the field of artificial intelligence (AI) are: Can knowledge be programmed in a digital computer? Can computers encode and decode that knowledge in ordinary language? Can they use it to interact with people and with other computer systems in a more flexible or helpful way? Information Processing Views of Knowledge 5 Hierarchical view: data information knowledge Information is the input or raw material of new knowledge Knowledge is authenticated/personalized information Reversed hierarchical view: knowledge information data Knowledge must exist before information can be formulated and before data can be collected Non-hierarchical view: data information Knowledge Knowledge is needed in converting data into information Knowledge is the accumulation of experiences vs. knowledge is created through conjectures and refutations. Alternative Perspectives on Knowledge 6 Knowledge can be defined as a justified belief that increases an entity’s capacity for effective action.
    [Show full text]
  • Rhetorical Structure Theory: Looking Back and Moving Ahead Maite Taboada and William C
    Discourse Studies http://dis.sagepub.com/ Rhetorical Structure Theory: looking back and moving ahead Maite Taboada and William C. Mann Discourse Studies 2006 8: 423 DOI: 10.1177/1461445606061881 The online version of this article can be found at: http://dis.sagepub.com/content/8/3/423 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com Additional services and information for Discourse Studies can be found at: Email Alerts: http://dis.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://dis.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://dis.sagepub.com/content/8/3/423.refs.html Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on March 23, 2011 ARTICLE 423 Rhetorical Structure Theory: looking back and moving ahead Discourse Studies Copyright © 2006 SAGE Publications. (London, Thousand Oaks, MAITE TABOADA CA and New Delhi) www.sagepublications.com SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY, CANADA Vol 8(3): 423–459. WILLIAM C. MANN1 10.1177/1461445606061881 INDEPENDENT RESEARCHER ABSTRACT Rhetorical Structure Theory has enjoyed continuous attention since its origins in the 1980s. It has been applied, compared to other approaches, and also criticized in a number of areas in discourse analysis, theoretical linguistics, psycholinguistics, and computational linguistics. In this article, we review some of the discussions about the theory itself, especially addressing issues of the reliability of analyses and psychological validity, together with a discussion of the nature of text relations. We also propose areas for further research. A follow-up article (Taboada and Mann, forthcoming) will discuss applications of the theory in various fields. KEY WORDS: coherence, coherence relations, discourse signalling, discourse structure, intentions, Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Knowledge Engineering Research Topic Mining Based on Co-Word Analysis
    Knowledge Engineering Research Topic Mining Based on Co-word Analysis Xiumin Liu Zheng Liu National Science Library National Science Library Chinese Academy of Sciences Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing, China Beijing, China [email protected] [email protected] Abstract—This paper collects research papers on knowledge engineering 2009-2018 from the internationally-authoritative II. DATA SOURCE citation database Web of Science and uses the co-word analysis This paper uses the international authoritative citation method to analyze these contents of literature. By statistical database Web of Science published by the American Institute analysis of keyword frequency, the paper compiles the co-word of Scientific Information (ISI) as the source of literature table of the high-frequency words, uses statistical analysis information. The paper intends to analysis the knowledge software to make hierarchical clustering, and summarizes hot engineering research topics, so that the search criteria are research topics in the knowledge engineering area. “topic or search keyword is knowledge engineering”, the Keywords-knowledge engineering; co-word analysis; topic search scope is 2009-2018, and the search time was February research; data process 12 2019 in the web of science database. The database has the added categories for each topic for more e. In the “knowledge engineering” subject, the “computer science interdisciplinary I. INTRODUCTION applications” or “computer science artificial intelligence” In 1977, Professor B.A. Feigenbaum, a computer scientist categories have been chosen for the limitation of the papers’ at Stanford University in the United States, presented a new content. A total of 1550 related articles were retrieved.
    [Show full text]