A comparison of languages which operationalise and formalise {KADS} models of expertise

In the field of Knowledge Engineering, dissatisfaction with the rapid-prototyping approach has led to a number of more principled methodologies for the construction of knowledge-based systems. Instead of immediately implementing the gathered and interpreted knowledge in a given implementation formalism according to the rapid-prototyping approach, many such methodologies centre around the notion of a conceptual model: an abstract, implementation independent description of the relevant problem solving expertise. A conceptual model should describe the task which is solved by the system and the knowledge which is required by it. Although such conceptual models have often been formulated in an informal way, recent years have seen the advent of formal and operational languages to describe such conceptual models more precisely, and operationally as a means for model evaluation. In this paper, we study a number of such formal and operational languages for specifying conceptual models. In order to enable a meaningful comparison of such languages, we focus on languages which are all aimed at the same underlying conceptual model, namely that from the KADS method for building KBS. We describe eight formal languages for KADS models of expertise, and compare these languages with respect to their modelling primitives, their semantics, their implementations and their applications. Future research issues in the area of formal and operational specification languages for KBS are identified as the result of studying these languages. The paper also contains an extensive bibliography of research in this area

Knowledge formalization in experience feedback processes : an ontology-based approach

Because of the current trend of integration and interoperability of industrial systems, their size and complexity continue to grow making it more difficult to analyze, to understand and to solve the problems that happen in their organizations. Continuous improvement methodologies are powerful tools in order to understand and to solve problems, to control the effects of changes and finally to capitalize knowledge about changes and improvements. These tools involve suitably represent knowledge relating to the concerned system. Consequently, knowledge management (KM) is an increasingly important source of competitive advantage for organizations. Particularly, the capitalization and sharing of knowledge resulting from experience feedback are elements which play an essential role in the continuous improvement of industrial activities. In this paper, the contribution deals with semantic interoperability and relates to the structuring and the formalization of an experience feedback (EF) process aiming at transforming information or understanding gained by experience into explicit knowledge. The reuse of such knowledge has proved to have significant impact on achieving themissions of companies. However, the means of describing the knowledge objects of an experience generally remain informal. Based on an experience feedback process model and conceptual graphs, this paper takes domain ontology as a framework for the clarification of explicit knowledge and know-how, the aim of which is to get lessons learned descriptions that are significant, correct and applicable

A Formal Framework for Concrete Reputation Systems

In a reputation-based trust-management system, agents maintain information about the past behaviour of other agents. This information is used to guide future trust-based decisions about interaction. However, while trust management is a component in security decision-making, many existing reputation-based trust-management systems provide no formal security-guarantees. In this extended abstract, we describe a mathematical framework for a class of simple reputation-based systems. In these systems, decisions about interaction are taken based on policies that are exact requirements on agents’ past histories. We present a basic declarative language, based on pure-past linear temporal logic, intended for writing simple policies. While the basic language is reasonably expressive (encoding e.g. Chinese Wall policies) we show how one can extend it with quantification and parameterized events. This allows us to encode other policies known from the literature, e.g., ‘one-out-of-k’. The problem of checking a history with respect to a policy is efficient for the basic language, and tractable for the quantified language when policies do not have too many variables

Semantics of trace relations in requirements models for consistency checking and inferencing

Requirements traceability is the ability to relate requirements back to stakeholders and forward to corresponding design artifacts, code, and test cases. Although considerable research has been devoted to relating requirements in both forward and backward directions, less attention has been paid to relating requirements with other requirements. Relations between requirements influence a number of activities during software development such as consistency checking and change management. In most approaches and tools, there is a lack of precise definition of requirements relations. In this respect, deficient results may be produced. In this paper, we aim at formal definitions of the relation types in order to enable reasoning about requirements relations. We give a requirements metamodel with commonly used relation types. The semantics of the relations is provided with a formalization in first-order logic. We use the formalization for consistency checking of relations and for inferring new relations. A tool has been built to support both reasoning activities. We illustrate our approach in an example which shows that the formal semantics of relation types enables new relations to be inferred and contradicting relations in requirements documents to be determined. The application of requirements reasoning based on formal semantics resolves many of the deficiencies observed in other approaches. Our tool supports better understanding of dependencies between requirements

Apperceptive patterning: Artefaction, extensional beliefs and cognitive scaffolding

In “Psychopower and Ordinary Madness” my ambition, as it relates to Bernard Stiegler’s recent literature, was twofold: 1) critiquing Stiegler’s work on exosomatization and artefactual posthumanism—or, more specifically, nonhumanism—to problematize approaches to media archaeology that rely upon technical exteriorization; 2) challenging how Stiegler engages with Giuseppe Longo and Francis Bailly’s conception of negative entropy. These efforts were directed by a prevalent techno-cultural qualifier: the rise of Synthetic Intelligence (including neural nets, deep learning, predictive processing and Bayesian models of cognition). This paper continues this project but first directs a critical analytic lens at the Derridean practice of the ontologization of grammatization from which Stiegler emerges while also distinguishing how metalanguages operate in relation to object-oriented environmental interaction by way of inferentialism. Stalking continental (Kapp, Simondon, Leroi-Gourhan, etc.) and analytic traditions (e.g., Carnap, Chalmers, Clark, Sutton, Novaes, etc.), we move from artefacts to AI and Predictive Processing so as to link theories related to technicity with philosophy of mind. Simultaneously drawing forth Robert Brandom’s conceptualization of the roles that commitments play in retrospectively reconstructing the social experiences that lead to our endorsement(s) of norms, we compliment this account with Reza Negarestani’s deprivatized account of intelligence while analyzing the equipollent role between language and media (both digital and analog)

Using formal methods to support testing

Formal methods and testing are two important approaches that assist in the development of high quality software. While traditionally these approaches have been seen as rivals, in recent years a new consensus has developed in which they are seen as complementary. This article reviews the state of the art regarding ways in which the presence of a formal specification can be used to assist testing

Theories of Meaning for the Internet of Things

In this chapter, we consider the theoretical foundations for representing knowledge in the Internet of Things context. Specifically, we consider (1) the model-theoretic semantics (i.e., extensional semantics), (2) the possible-world semantics (i.e., intensional semantics), (3) the situation semantics, and (4) the cognitive/distributional semantics. Given the peculiarities of the Internet of Things, we pay particular attention to (a) perception (i.e., how to establish a connection to the world), (b) intersubjectivity (i.e., how to align world representations), and (c) the dynamics of world knowledge (i.e., how to model events). We come to the conclusion that each of the semantic theories helps in modeling specific aspects, but does not sufficiently address all three aspects simultaneously

Property specification and static verification of UML models

We present a static verification tool (SVT), a system that performs static verification on UML models composed of UML class and state machine diagrams. Additionally, the SVT allows the user to add extra behavior specification in the form of guards and effects by defining a small action language. UML models are checked against properties written in a special-purpose property language that allows the user to specify linear temporal logic formulas that explicitly reason about UML components. Thus, the SVT provides a strong foundation for the design of reliable systems and a step towards model-driven security

Proceedings of the Joint Automated Reasoning Workshop and Deduktionstreffen: As part of the Vienna Summer of Logic – IJCAR 23-24 July 2014

Preface For many years the British and the German automated reasoning communities have successfully run independent series of workshops for anybody working in the area of automated reasoning. Although open to the general public they addressed in the past primarily the British and the German communities, respectively. At the occasion of the Vienna Summer of Logic the two series have a joint event in Vienna as an IJCAR workshop. In the spirit of the two series there will be only informal proceedings with abstracts of the works presented. These are collected in this document. We have tried to maintain the informal open atmosphere of the two series and have welcomed in particular research students to present their work. We have solicited for all work related to automated reasoning and its applications with a particular interest in work-in-progress and the presentation of half-baked ideas. As in the previous years, we have aimed to bring together researchers from all areas of automated reasoning in order to foster links among researchers from various disciplines; among theoreticians, implementers and users alike, and among international communities, this year not just the British and German communities