To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This paper reviews the current state of the art in natural language access to databases. This has been a long-standing area of work in natural language processing. But though some commercial systems are now available, providing front ends has proved much harder than was expected, and the necessary limitations on front ends have to be recognized. The paper discusses the issues, both general to language and task-specific, involved in front end design, and the way these have been addressed, concentrating on the work of the last decade. The focus is on the central process of translating a natural language question into a database query, but other supporting functions are also covered. The points are illustrated by the use of a single example application. The paper concludes with an evaluation of the current state, indicating that future progress will depend on the one hand on general advances in natural language processing, and on the other on expanding the capabilities of traditional databases.
This paper presents a general discussion of the role of formal methods in knowledge engineering. We give an historical account of the development of the field of knowledge engineering towards the use of formal methods. Subsequently, we discuss the pros and cons of formal methods. We do this by summarising the proclaimed advantages, and by arguing against some of the commonly heard objections against formal methods. We briefly summarise the current state of the art and discuss the most important directions that future research in this field should take. This paper presents a general setting for the other contributions in this issue of the journal, which each deal with a specific issue in more detail.
This paper reviews many of the very varied concepts of uncertainty used in AI. Because of their great popularity and generality “parallel certainty inference” techniques, so-called, are prominently in the foreground. We illustrate and comment in detail on three of these techniques; Bayes' theory (section 2); Dempster-Shafer theory (section 3); Cohen's model of endorsements (section 4), and give an account of the debate that has arisen around each of them. Techniques of a different kind (such as Zadeh's fuzzy-sets, fuzzy-logic theory, and the use of non-standard logics and methods that manage uncertainty without explicitly dealing with it) may be seen in the background (section 5).
The discussion of technicalities is accompanied by a historical and philosophical excursion on the nature and the use of uncertainty (section 1), and by a brief discussion of the problem of choosing an adequate AI approach to the treatment of uncertainty (section 6). The aim of the paper is to highlight the complex nature of uncertainty and to argue for an open-minded attitude towards its representation and use. In this spirit the pros and cons of uncertainty treatment techniques are presented in order to reflect the various uncertainty types. A guide to the literature in the field, and an extensive bibliography are appended.
In this paper, we present two broad styles of KBS reasoner: those based primarily on some general, explicit model of the knowledge of the domain (whether that model be expressed by heuristic rules or by a deep model of structure and function), which we term domain model-based reasoners; and those based primarily on a set of examples of events in the domain, which we term example-based reasoners (EBR), of which case-based reasoners are a subset. The aim of this paper is to guide developers in considering the trade-offs between these different styles of reasoning. We believe that this cannot be done in general, but may be possible for specific domains. Thus, the paper provides an example analysis of the usefulness of these reasoning styles. We assess the suitability of these styles against a series of requirements which we have identified that KBSs must fulfil if they are to support help desk operations. We conclude that EBR systems are more likely to meet those requirements (the analysis draws on our earlier work in Bridge & Dearden, 1992).
This paper gives the personal view of a Japanese knowledge engineer, concerning the present status of the evolution of knowledge engineering in Japan, especially its applications in the business field, user evaluation and acceptance, problems, and future prospects.