COKE: efficient solving of complex assignment problems with the propose-and-exchange method

Poeck, Karsten; Puppe, Frank

doi:10.1109/tai.1992.246362

Cited by 9 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Motta and Zdrahal instantiated their approach in the area of parametric design and showed that several PSMs existing in the literature -e.g. Propose&Backtrack (Runkel et al, 1996), Propose&Exchange (Poeck and Puppe, 1992) and Propose and Revise -could be characterized as specializations of a common problem solving model, obtained by instantiated an ontology for parametric design tasks in terms of a search model of problem solving. In particular, all PSMs in the parametric design library described in (Motta, 1997) subscribe to a common, generic control regime.…”

Section: Problem Solving Methods As Task-specific Formulations Of Seamentioning

confidence: 99%

Structured development of problem solving methods

Fensel

Motta

2001

IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. Problem solving methods (PSMs) are domain-independent reasoning components, which specify patterns of behavior which can be reused across applications. While the availability of extensive PSM libraries and the emerging consensus on PSM specification languages indicate the maturity of the field, a number of important research issues are still open. In particular, very little progress has been achieved on foundational and methodological issues. Existing libraries of PSMs lack a clear theoretical basis and only provide weak support for the method development process, usually in the form of informal guidelines. In this paper we will address these issues by illustrating a framework which characterizes PSMs in terms of problem commitments , problem-solving paradigms and domain assumptions . This framework provides i) a theoretical foundation for situating PSM research and individual PSMs, as well as ii) an organization which allows us to characterize method development and selection as a process of navigating through a three-dimensional space (defined by the three components of our framework). Individual moves through this space are specified by means of adapters . In the paper we will illustrate these ideas in detail, with examples taken from parametric design problem solving.

show abstract

Section: Problem Solving Methods As Task-specific Formulations Of Seamentioning

confidence: 99%

Structured development of problem solving methods

Fensel

Motta

2001

IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…• Propose and exchange: The strong problem solving method propose and exchange [PoP92] has been formalized for solving a simple design task [LFA93]. This problem solving method is well-suited for solving assignment problems.…”

Section: Specification Of Problem Solving Methods In Karlmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Knowledge Acquisition and Representation Language, KARL

Fensel¹,

Angele²,

Studer³

1995

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Knowledge Acquisition and Representation Language (KARL) combines a description of a knowledge-based system at the conceptual level (a so-called model of expertise) with a description at a formal and executable level. Thus, KARL allows the precise and unique specification of the functionality of a knowledge-based system independent of any implementational details. A KARL model of expertise contains the description of domain knowledge, inference knowledge, and procedural control knowledge. For capturing these different types of knowledge KARL provides corresponding modeling primitives that are based on Frame-logic and Dynamic Logic. A declarative semantics for a complete KARL model of expertise is given by a novel combination of these two types of logic. In addition, an operational definition of this semantics, which relies on a fixpoint approach, is given. This operational semantics defines the basis for the implementation of the KARL interpreter which includes appropriate algorithms for efficiently evaluating KARL specifications. This enables the evaluation of KARL specifications by means of testing.

show abstract

“…Current work on formal definitions of problem-type may lead to further clarification of terms as, e.g. for diagnosis (de Kleer, Mackworth & Reiter, 1992) or for assignment (Poeck & Puppe, 1992). Finally, the distinction between task and PSM-a task decomposition-is very thin and confusing.…”

Section: Typologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%