Cognitive context and arguments from ontologies for learning

The deployment of learning resources on the web by different experts has resulted in the accessibility of multiple viewpoints about the same topics. In this work we assume that learning resources are underpinned by ontologies. Different formalizations of domains may result from different contexts, different use of terminology, incomplete knowledge or conflicting knowledge. We define the notion of cognitive learning context which describes the cognitive context of an agent who refers to multiple and possibly inconsistent ontologies to determine the truth of a proposition. In particular we describe the cognitive states of ambiguity and inconsistency resulting from incomplete and conflicting ontologies respectively. Conflicts between ontologies can be identified through the derivation of conflicting arguments about a particular point of view. Arguments can be used to detect inconsistencies between ontologies. They can also be used in a dialogue between a human learner and a software tutor in order to enable the learner to justify her views and detect inconsistencies between her beliefs and the tutor’s own. Two types of arguments are discussed, namely: arguments inferred directly from taxonomic relations between concepts, and arguments about the necessary an

A foundation for machine learning in design

This paper presents a formalism for considering the issues of learning in design. A foundation for machine learning in design (MLinD) is defined so as to provide answers to basic questions on learning in design, such as, "What types of knowledge can be learnt?", "How does learning occur?", and "When does learning occur?". Five main elements of MLinD are presented as the input knowledge, knowledge transformers, output knowledge, goals/reasons for learning, and learning triggers. Using this foundation, published systems in MLinD were reviewed. The systematic review presents a basis for validating the presented foundation. The paper concludes that there is considerable work to be carried out in order to fully formalize the foundation of MLinD

Context, categories and modality: Challenges for the Rumelhart model

Three issues are raised in this commentary. First, the mapping of semantic information into the different layers could be done in a more realistic way by using the Context layer to represent situational contexts. Second, a way to differentiate category membership information from other property information needs to be considered. Finally, the issue of modal knowledge is raised