Abstract
This article sets forth a framework for comparing and evaluating knowledge representation schemes based on the requirements for "good" representation discussed in extant literature. The dimensions of the framework suggest that knowledge representation schemes should possess a suitable mix of four basic considerations: Representational adequacy (Variety of Expressiveness, Modularity, Semantics, and Organization of Knowledge); Inference Methods (Reasoning Strategies, Data, Control and Search Strategies); and Inference Requirements (Computational Efficiency, Transparency of line of control, Completeness, and Consistency). A comparative analysis and evaluation of four popular knowledge representation schemes-Logic, Production Rules, Semantic Nets, Frames-highlighting their strengths and weaknesses in the context of the framework is furnished as evidence of its inherent validity and usefulness. In conclusion, it is submitted that incorporating an appropriate blend of the various dimensions elucidated in this article could be a step towards developing more flexible, dynamic, and valuable knowledge representation schemes.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 233-247 |
| Number of pages | 15 |
| Journal | Information Processing and Management |
| Volume | 31 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jan 1 1995 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Frames.
- Framework
- Knowledge representation schemes
- Logic
- Production rules
- Representational adequacy
- Representational properties
- Semantic net
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Information Systems
- Media Technology
- Computer Science Applications
- Management Science and Operations Research
- Library and Information Sciences
Cite this
A framework for the comparative analysis and evaluation of knowledge representation schemes. / Bingi, R.; Khazanchi, Deepak; Yadav, Surya B.
In: Information Processing and Management, Vol. 31, No. 2, 01.01.1995, p. 233-247.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - A framework for the comparative analysis and evaluation of knowledge representation schemes
AU - Bingi, R.
AU - Khazanchi, Deepak
AU - Yadav, Surya B.
PY - 1995/1/1
Y1 - 1995/1/1
N2 - This article sets forth a framework for comparing and evaluating knowledge representation schemes based on the requirements for "good" representation discussed in extant literature. The dimensions of the framework suggest that knowledge representation schemes should possess a suitable mix of four basic considerations: Representational adequacy (Variety of Expressiveness, Modularity, Semantics, and Organization of Knowledge); Inference Methods (Reasoning Strategies, Data, Control and Search Strategies); and Inference Requirements (Computational Efficiency, Transparency of line of control, Completeness, and Consistency). A comparative analysis and evaluation of four popular knowledge representation schemes-Logic, Production Rules, Semantic Nets, Frames-highlighting their strengths and weaknesses in the context of the framework is furnished as evidence of its inherent validity and usefulness. In conclusion, it is submitted that incorporating an appropriate blend of the various dimensions elucidated in this article could be a step towards developing more flexible, dynamic, and valuable knowledge representation schemes.
AB - This article sets forth a framework for comparing and evaluating knowledge representation schemes based on the requirements for "good" representation discussed in extant literature. The dimensions of the framework suggest that knowledge representation schemes should possess a suitable mix of four basic considerations: Representational adequacy (Variety of Expressiveness, Modularity, Semantics, and Organization of Knowledge); Inference Methods (Reasoning Strategies, Data, Control and Search Strategies); and Inference Requirements (Computational Efficiency, Transparency of line of control, Completeness, and Consistency). A comparative analysis and evaluation of four popular knowledge representation schemes-Logic, Production Rules, Semantic Nets, Frames-highlighting their strengths and weaknesses in the context of the framework is furnished as evidence of its inherent validity and usefulness. In conclusion, it is submitted that incorporating an appropriate blend of the various dimensions elucidated in this article could be a step towards developing more flexible, dynamic, and valuable knowledge representation schemes.
KW - Frames.
KW - Framework
KW - Knowledge representation schemes
KW - Logic
KW - Production rules
KW - Representational adequacy
KW - Representational properties
KW - Semantic net
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029277319&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029277319&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/0306-4573(95)80037-T
DO - 10.1016/0306-4573(95)80037-T
M3 - Article
VL - 31
SP - 233
EP - 247
JO - Information Processing and Management
JF - Information Processing and Management
SN - 0306-4573
IS - 2
ER -