A situated cognition approach to conceptual modelling

Conceptual modelling is an important task in the development of computer systems, regardless of whether they are data-based or knowledge-based systems (KBSs). Most approaches see conceptual modelling as a prerequisite to the capture of data or knowledge. These approaches implicitly assume that it is possible to capture and validate a "good" model. However, modelling is difficult, time-consuming and error-prone. The approach described in this paper is based on a situated view of cognition and the premise that is is not easy to capture or evaluate a conceptual model. The alternative offered is based on the use of cases, ripple-down rules (RDRs) and formal concept analysis (FCA). Cases are used to motivate the capture of rules in a simple, user-driven manner. RDRs are used as the knowledge acquisition and representation technique. The propositional rules are then interpreted as a binary formal context and a complete lattice is automatically generated using FCA. In this way, contrary to mainstream approaches, we begin with an assertional KBS and later derive a terminological KBS. Cases ground the KBS in the real world and provide the context in which the knowledge applies. The ease with which the knowledge is acquired and maintained allows for the continual evolution of the KBS, in keeping with the notion that knowledge is continually evolving and " made up" to fit the situation.

[1]  Byeong Ho Kang,et al.  Multiple Classification Ripple Down Rules : Evaluation and Possibilities , 2000 .

[2]  Mark A. Musen,et al.  Mappings for Reuse in Knowledge-based Systems , 2001 .

[3]  Paul Compton,et al.  Local Patching Produces Compact Knowledge Bases , 1994, EKAW.

[4]  G Edwards,et al.  Peirs: A pathologist‐maintained expert system for the interpretation of chemical pathology reports , 1993, Pathology.

[5]  Veda C. Storey,et al.  An Ontology for Database Design Automation , 1997, ER.

[6]  Kitsana Waiyamai,et al.  Towards an Object Database Approach for Managing Concept Lattices , 1997, ER.

[7]  P. Compton,et al.  A philosophical basis for knowledge acquisition , 1990 .

[8]  J. Nunamaker,et al.  Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences , 1999 .

[9]  R. Wille.  Concept lattices and conceptual knowledge systems , 1992 .

[10]  David W. Embley,et al.  A Conceptual-Modeling Approach to Extracting Data from the Web , 1998, ER.

[11]  Byeong Ho Kang,et al.  The Use of Simulated Experts in Evaluating Knowledge Acquisition , 1995 .

[12]  Byunghoon Kang.  Validating Knowledge Acquisition: Multiple Classification Ripple Down Rules PhD Thesis , 1996 .

[13]  Terry Winograd,et al.  Understanding computers and cognition , 1986 .

[14]  Peter F. Patel-Schneider,et al.  Living wiht Classic: When and How to Use a KL-ONE-Like Language , 1991, Principles of Semantic Networks.

[15]  John F. Sowa,et al.  Conceptual Structures: Fulfilling Peirce's Dream , 1997, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[16]  William J. Clancey,et al.  Situated Action: A Neuropsychologiwl Interpretation Response to Vera and Simon , 2005 .

[17]  Tobias Scheffer,et al.  Algebraic foundations and improved methods of induction or ripple-down rules , 1996 .

[18]  W. Clancey.  Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design: T. Winograd and F. Flores, (Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 1986); 207 pages, $24.95 , 1987 .

[19]  Ramanathan V. Guha,et al.  CYC: A Midterm Report , 1990, AI Mag..

[20]  Brian R. Gaines,et al.  A Methodology for Analyzing Terminological and Conceptual Differences in Language Use across Communities , 1993 .

[21]  Deborah Richards,et al.  The reuse of knowledge in ripple-down rules knowledge-based systems , 1998 .

[22]  Bernhard Ganter,et al.  Stepwise Construction of the Dedekind-MacNeille Completion (Research Note) , 1998, ICCS.

[23]  Jadzia Cendrowska,et al.  PRISM: An Algorithm for Inducing Modular Rules , 1987, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[24]  Debbie Richards,et al.  Taking up the situated cognition challenge with ripple down rules , 1998, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[25]  Rudolf Wille,et al.  Conceptual Graphs and Formal Concept Analysis , 1997, ICCS.

[26]  Terry Winograd,et al.  Understanding computers and cognition - a new foundation for design , 1987 .

[27]  Brian R. Gaines,et al.  An Interactive Visual Language for Term Subsumption Languages , 1991, IJCAI.

[28]  R. Hepburn,et al.  BEING AND TIME , 2010 .

[29]  W. Birmingham,et al.  Comparing Concepts in Differentiated Ontologies , 1999 .

[30]  Brian R. Gaines,et al.  Comparing the Conceptual Systems of Experts , 1989, IJCAI.