Achieving flexibility and efficiency in blackboardbased AI applications are often conflicting goals. Flexibility, the ability to easily change the blackboard representation and retrieval machinery, can be achieved by using a general purpose blackboard database implementation, at the cost of efficient performance for a particular application. Conversely, a customized blackboard database implementation, while efficient, leads to strong interdependencies between the application code (knowledge sources) and the blackboard database implementation. Both flexibility and efficiency can be achieved by maintaining a sufficient level of data abstraction between the application code and the blackboard implementation. The abstraction techniques we present are a crucial aspect of the generic blackboard development system GBB. Applied in concert, these techniques simultaneously provide flexibility, efficiency, and sufficient generality to make GBB an appropriate blackboard development tool for a wide range of applications.
[1]
Penny Nii.
The blackboard model of problem solving
,
1986
.
[2]
Daniel D. Corkill,et al.
GBB: A Generic Blackboard Development System
,
1986,
AAAI.
[3]
Victor R. Lesser,et al.
The Hearsay-II Speech-Understanding System: Integrating Knowledge to Resolve Uncertainty
,
1980,
CSUR.
[4]
H. Penny Nii,et al.
Blackboard Systems, Part One: The Blackboard Model of Problem Solving and the Evolution of Blackboard Architectures
,
1986,
AI Mag..
[5]
Victor R. Lesser,et al.
The Distributed Vehicle Monitoring Testbed: A Tool for Investigating Distributed Problem Solving Networks
,
1983,
AI Mag..
[6]
Daniel D. Corkill,et al.
GBB Reference Manual
,
1988
.
[7]
Stephen Fickas,et al.
The Design and an Example Use of Hearsay-III
,
1981,
IJCAI.
[8]
Barbara Hayes-Roth,et al.
A Blackboard Architecture for Control
,
1985,
Artif. Intell..