1 / 42

ATSIR , Taipei, Taiwan November 22-24, 2013

A GRAPHICAL SCHEME FOR COMPLEX KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION. Chandra S. Amaravadi. Western Illinois University Macomb, IL . ATSIR , Taipei, Taiwan November 22-24, 2013. Overview. Introduction Relevant literature Characteristics of complex knowledge

minda
Download Presentation

ATSIR , Taipei, Taiwan November 22-24, 2013

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. A GRAPHICAL SCHEME FOR COMPLEX KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION Chandra S. Amaravadi Western Illinois University Macomb, IL ATSIR, Taipei, Taiwan November 22-24, 2013

  2. Overview • Introduction • Relevant literature • Characteristics of complex knowledge • Knowledge engineering for complex knowledge • CKR-1 • Conclusions

  3. Introduction

  4. Introduction • Knowledge representation a key issue in AI/KB systems • knowledge is a discrete component • Modelling of complex knowledge a standing problem • Example tax code, EPA regulations, investment knowledge.. • Useful in knowledge-based systems, KM Defined as deep inter-related knowledge concerning a complex object, idea, process, behavior or system.

  5. Some classical problems in KR • primitive selection and granularity • choice of primitives • primitive relationships • network partitioning • selective inheritance • non-monotonic reasoning & belief revision • closed world assumption • probabilistic & temporal reasoning • quantification (some persons are mortal)

  6. Relevant Literature

  7. Relevant Literature • Seminal work in the ‘70’s & 80’s • Generalized representation languages • e.g. KL-One [Brachman & Schmolze ‘85], Loom [MacGregor ‘99], • ….Classic [Patel-schneider ‘91], KRS [Marcke et al. ‘87] • Specialized schemes adapted to a particular domain • e.g. geometric fig. [Lee ’88], IR [Gomez ’98; Zarri ‘01] • .. internet [Heflin et al. ‘99], NL [Sowa ‘94] • Recent emphasis on procedural, ontological, multi-paradigm schemes plus text processing • procedural – e.g. CBR [Zeng et al. 06], neural nets [Kurfess ‘99] • ontological – e.g. TOB [Zhang et al. 08], BPM [Hepp 06] • multi-paradigm schemes – e.g. KROL [Shaalan et al. ‘99] • text processing & IR schemes – e.g. [Zhao et al. ’12]

  8. KL-ONE [Brachman & Schmolze ‘85] red thing blue person John color v/r val Ferrari manufacturer val driver Mary car race Grand Prix Nexus 1 Context 1 Modelling concepts with KL-One

  9. LOOM [MacGregor ‘99] (defconcept Person) (defrelation has-child :domain Person :range Person) (defconcept Male) (defconcept Person-with-Sons:is (:and Person (:at-least 1 has-child Male))) (defconcept Person-with-Two-Sons:is (and Person (:exactly 2 has-child Male))) (tell (Person Fred)) (tell (has-child Fred Sandy)) (tell (Male Sandy))

  10. Conceptual Graphs [Sowa ‘94] Van leaves BSS at 11:00 am and goes to Elnet BSS Elnet origin Leaves dest. Subj. Van Consider: rate making is the process by which insurers determine the rates for each category or classification, of similar, but independent insureds.

  11. DOGMA-MESS [Christeans and Moor ‘06] uses material uses tool Process results-in product done-by actor

  12. MULTI-NETS [Helbig ‘05] On July 8, 1497, Vasco De Gama led a fleet of four ships with a crew of 170 men from Lisbon and sailed 6,000 miles to reach the shores of India

  13. KR Features of Selected KR Schemes

  14. Limitations of Existing Approaches • Lack of continuity in KR ̴1995 • Literature sparse for generalized schemes • business knowledge, complex knowledge, graphical schemes • No formal studies of domain characteristics • Conceptual and epistemic levels still problematic • Lack of emphasis on relationships and knowledge structuring primitives • Multi-nets recent and comprehensive

  15. Limitations of Ontologies • Usually in very structured domains • welding [Kitamura and Mizoguchi 2003] • BPM [Hepp and Roman 2007] • TOB [Zhang 2008] • Relationships are rigid and pre-visioned • e.g. PROCESS uses TOOL [Christaens and Moor 2006] • e.g. PROCESS results-in PRODUCT [ibid] • Ontology visualization [Hepp 2008] • very simple notation • use UML • Tend not to be interchangeable

  16. Characteristics of complex knowledge

  17. Examples of complex knowledge [Luthardt et al. 2005] “Property includes real property and personal property. Real property is lands, buildings and other property attached to it.” §1.6 “A liability loss exposure is any condition or situation that presents the possibility of a claim alleging legal responsibility of a person or business for injury or damage suffered by another party.” § 1.6 “Types of insurers include stock insuers, mutual insurers and reciprocal exchanges” § 1.11 “Depreciation is allowance for physical wear and tear or technological or economic obsolescence” § 6.14 “A contract of good faith is an obligation to act in an honest manner and to disclose all relevant facts.” § 7.7

  18. Characteristics of complex knowledge • describe objects, events, actions, situations & concepts • objects generally concrete • concepts generally abstract • concepts involve other concepts • mathematical • structural • axiomatic • logical • concepts may involve undefined concepts • alternatively, elaboration on concepts • conditions and restrictions may be imposed CK – complex knowledge

  19. Knowledge Engineering for complex knowledge

  20. Knowledge Engineering for CK committed to graphical notation representational adequacy an ideal support: concept definition, reuse multiple definitions modularity (network partitioning) simple and complex relationships pre-defined relationships (structural, logical etc.) as well as arbitrary

  21. CKR-1

  22. CKR-1 Constructs Simple/atomic concept, object/ instance or variable E/S Simple event/situation A Simple activity Complex Concept, object E/A Complex Event or Activity Name Derived Concept ( Complex) Connector for 2 or more concepts/ objects/ events Multiple Arguments (and) Multiple Arguments (and/or)

  23. CKR-1 Logical Operators Adapted from [Schubert 1976] True if False Negation Then part of an if Quantification Equivalence =

  24. CKR-1 Relationships

  25. Representing simple knowledge An unnatural event is an earthquake, fire, flood, storm.. E Unnatural event s: is - a E Fire E Flood

  26. Simple Knowledge is not Always Simple Board of directors s:cmp-of s:is-a s:cmp-of Elected officials position person rp: method of appointment “The BOD consists of elected officials” [Luthardt et al. 2005] voting

  27. Derived Concepts and Descriptive Relationships DAMAGE d-temp: AFTR Damaged Entity Damaged Entity rp: ST rp: ST d-state:WT c X damage Y Damage is defined as worsening of the state of an entity

  28. Complex Knowledge with Elaboration, Relationships & Variables E Unnatural event e:CAU DAMAGE d-temp: AFTR Damaged Entity Damaged Entity rp: ST rp: ST d-state:WT c X damage Y Worsening of state is caused by an unatural event

  29. More Relationship Types and Multiplicity LOSS1 d-cause: CAU E A Unnatural event damage Damage d-case: OBJ. c Damaged entity damage Loss is damage to an entity as a result of an unnatural event. Note that damaged entity can be a person, livestock etc. [Luthardt et al. 2005]

  30. Another way to represent loss: Multiplicity E Unnatural event LOSS2 e:CAU d-log:GT Damaged entity value Damaged entity value p: time p: time c T1 T2 d-temp: AFTR Loss can be a decrease in value of a damaged entity

  31. User Defined Concepts and Variables COVERAGE1 d-case: SUBJ E Insured damage Loss rp: loss amount c LAMOUNT damage Insurance coverage is the legal obligation of underwriter to compensate insured in the event of a loss – here insured suffers loss

  32. User Defined Concepts.. COVERAGE2 d-bus PP Underwriter Insured damage e: loss amount c damage LAMOUNT Underwriter compensates insured for loss amount

  33. Propositions with User Defined Concepts COVERAGE Coverage1 Coverage2 damage Coverage = Coverage1 and Coverage2

  34. Concept Definition & Extension insurancepolicy d-bus: COCO insurer insured rights d-bus: LERQ d-bus: LERQ duties An insurance policy defines in detail the rights and duties of both parties to the contract: the insured and insurer.

  35. Adding to Concept Definition.. insurancepolicy+ s:has-a coverage insured rp:DUR Time period An insurance policy provides coverage for a specified time period.

  36. Morecomplexknowledge.. “many states require insurers to file their policy forms with the state department in a manner similar to the method used for rate filing. USA law s:ag-of s:sm-as s:has-a requirement States many s:has-a d-bus:APL d-proc: FILE State insurance department insurer A e-method s:is-a d-cause:OBJ d-log: SIM s:is-a Y Rate filing X Policy form

  37. Canwerepresentthis? “Indemnify means to restore a party who has suffered loss to the same financial position that the party held before the loss.” “Liability insurance covers liability loss exposures. It provides for payment on behalf of the insured for injury to others or damage to other’s property for which the insured is legally responsible.” “Replacement cost is the cost to repair or replace property using new materials of like kind and quality with no deduction for depreciation.” “Salvage rights are the insurer’s rights to recover and sell or otherwise dispose of insured property on which the insurer has paid a total loss or a constructive total loss.”

  38. EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS

  39. Quantitative Evaluation Evaluation of Expressivity in CKR-1

  40. Qualitative Evaluation

  41. Conclusions • graphical method designed for abstract, complex, specialized domains • abstractions/partitioning • multiple methods of definition • some integration of ideas; elements of: • logical & partitioned networks • case frames & concept graphs • designed also for usability and re-usability • graphical • can be used in multiple domains (FR) • modularization • very flexible -- arbitrary concepts & relationships • some limitations (FR) Note: FR – Future Research

  42. Questions?

More Related