Problem-solving methods: Making assumptions for efficiency reasons

  • Dieter Fensel
  • Remco Straatman
Theoretical and General Issues
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1076)


In this paper we present the following view on problem-solving methods for knowledge-based systems: Problem-solving methods describe an efficient reasoning strategy to achieve a goal by introducing assumptions about the available domain knowledge and the required functionality. Assumptions, dynamic reasoning behavior, and functionality are the three elements necessary to characterize a problem-solving method.


Domain Knowledge Reasoning Process Problem Space Constraint Violation Generation Step 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [Akkermans et al., 1993]
    J. M. Akkermans, B. Wielinga, and A. TH. Schreiber: Steps in Constructing Problem-Solving Methods. In N. Aussenac et al. (eds.): Knowledge-Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems, Lecture Notes in AI, no 723, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993.Google Scholar
  2. [Benjamins, 1993]
    V. R. Benjamins: Problem Solving Methods for Diagnosis, PhD Thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 1993.Google Scholar
  3. [Bredeweg, 1994]
    B. Bredeweg: Model-based diagnosis and prediction of behaviour. In [Breuker & Van de Velde, 1994], pp. 121–153.Google Scholar
  4. [Breuker & Van de Velde, 1994]
    J. Breuker and W. Van de Velde (eds.): The CommonKADS Library for Expertise Modelling, IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. [Bylander, 1991]
    T. Bylander: Complexity Results for Planning. In Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-91), Sydney, Australia, August 1991.Google Scholar
  6. [Bylander & Chandrasekaran, 1988]
    T. Bylander and B. Chandrasekaran: Generic Tasks in Knowledge-Based Reasoning. The Right Level of Abstraction for Knowledge Acquisition. In B. Gaines et al. (eds.): Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems, vol I, pp. 65–77, Academic Press, London, 1988.Google Scholar
  7. [Bylander et al., 1991]
    T. Bylander, D. Allemang, M. C. Tanner, and J. R. Josephson: The Computational Complexity of Abduction, Artificial Intelligence, 49, pages 25–60, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. [Chandrasekaran et al., 1992]
    B. Chandrasekaran, T.R. Johnson, and J. W. Smith: Task Structure Analysis for Knowledge Modeling, Communications of the ACM, 35(9): 124–137, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. [David et al, 1993]
    J.-M. David, J.-P. Krivine, and R. Simmons (eds.): Second Generation Expert Systems, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. [de Kleer & Williams, 1987]
    J. H. de Kleer and B. C. Williams: Diagnosing Multiple Faults, Artificial Intelligence, 32():97–130, 1987.Google Scholar
  11. [Fensel, 1995a]
    D. Fensel: Assumptions and Limitations of a Problem-Solving Method: A Case Study. In Proceedings of the 9th Banff Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based System Workshop (KAW'95), Banff, Canada, February 26th–February 3th, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. [Fensel, 1995b]
    D. Fensel: Formal Specification Languages in Knowledge and Software Engineering, The Knowledge Engineering Review, 10(4), 1995.Google Scholar
  13. [Fensel & Groenboom, 1995]
    D. Fensel and R. Groenboom: A Formal Semantics for Specifying the Dynamic Reasoning of Knowledge-based Systems. In Proceedings of the Knowledge Engineering: Methods and Languages Workshop (KEML'96), January 15–16, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. [Fensel & van Harmelen, 1994]
    D. Fensel and F. van Harmelen: A Comparison of Languages which Operationalize and Formalize KADS Models of Expertise, The Knowledge Engineering Review, 9(2), 1994.Google Scholar
  15. [Goel et al., 1987]
    A. Goel, N. Soundararajan, and B. Chandrasekaran: Complexity in Classificatory Reasoning. In 6th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'87), Seattle, Washington, July 13–17, 1987, pages 421–425.Google Scholar
  16. [Kifer et al., 1995]
    M. Kifer, G. Lausen, and J. Wu: Logical Foundations of Object-Oriented and Frame-Based Languages, Journal of the ACM, 42:741–843, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. [Kozen, 1990]
    D: Kozen: Logics of Programs. In J. v. Leeuwen (ed.), Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Elsevier Science Publ., B. V., Amsterdam, 1990.Google Scholar
  18. [Landes & Studer, 1995]
    D. Landes and R. Studer: The Treatment of Non-Functional Requirements in MIKE. In Proceedings of the 5th European Software Engineering Conference ESEC'95, Barcelona, Spain, September 25–28, 1995.Google Scholar
  19. [Levesque, 1984]
    H. J. Levesque: Foundations of a functional approach to knowledge representation, Artificial Intelligence, 23(2):155–212, 1984.Google Scholar
  20. [Marcus, 1988]
    S. Marcus (ed.). Automating Knowledge Acquisition for Experts Systems, Kluwer Academic Publisher, Boston, 1988.Google Scholar
  21. [Marcus et al., 1988]
    S. Marcus, J. Stout, and J. McDermott VT: An Expert Elevator Designer That Uses Knowledge-based Backtracking, AI Magazine, 9(1):95–111, 1988.Google Scholar
  22. [Musen, 1992]
    M. A. Musen: Overcoming the Limitations of Role-Limiting Methods, Knowledge Acquisition, 4 (2): 165–170, 1992.Google Scholar
  23. [Nebel, 1995]
    B. Nebel: Artificial intelligence: A Computational Perspective. To appear in G. Brewka (ed.), Essentials in Knowledge Representation.Google Scholar
  24. [Poeck et al., 1996]
    K. Poeck, D. Fensel, D. Landes, and J. Angele: Combining KARL And CRLM For Designing Vertical Transportation Systems. In [Schreiber & Birmingham, 1996].Google Scholar
  25. [Puppe, 1993]
    F. Puppe: Systematic Introduction to Expert Systems: Knowledge Representation and Problem-Solving Methods, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993.Google Scholar
  26. [Reif, 1995]
    W. Reif: The KIV Approach to Software Engineering. In M. Broy and S. Jähnichen (eds.): Methods, Languages, and Tools for the Construction of Correct Software, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), no 1009, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995.Google Scholar
  27. [Rich & Knight, 1991]
    E. Rich and K. Knight: Artificial Intelligence, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2nd edition, 1991.Google Scholar
  28. [Rouveirol & Albert, 1994]
    C. Rouveirol and P. Albert: Knowledge level model of a configurable learning system. In Lecture Notes in Aritificial Intelligence (LNAI), no 867 Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994.Google Scholar
  29. [Schreiber & Birmingham, 1996]
    A. Th. Schreiber and B. Birmingham (eds.): Special Issue on Sisyphus, The International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, to appear, 1996.Google Scholar
  30. [Schreiber et al., 1993]
    A. Th. Schreiber, B. J. Wielinga, and J. A. Breuker (eds.): KADS: A Principled Approach to Knowledge-Based System Development, vol 11 of Knowledge-Based Systems Book Series, Academic Press, London, 1993.Google Scholar
  31. [Schreiber et al., 1994]
    A. TH. Schreiber, B. Wielinga, J. M. Akkermans, W. Van De Velde, and R. de Hoog: CommonKADS. A Comprehensive Methodology for KBS Development, IEEE Expert, 9(6):28–37, 1994.Google Scholar
  32. [Steels, 1990]
    L. Steels: Components of Expertise, AI Magazine, 11(2), 1990.Google Scholar
  33. [Straatman & Beys, 1995]
    R. Straatman and P. Beys: A Performance Model for Knowledge-based Systems. In M. Ayel and M. C. Rousset (eds.): EUROVAV-95 European Symposium on the Validation and Verification of Knowledge Based Systems, pages 253–263. ADEIRAS, Universite de Sovoie, Chambery, 26–28 June 1995.Google Scholar
  34. [Tank, 1992]
    W. Tank: Modellierung von Expertise über Konfigurationsaufgaben, Infix, Sankt Augustin, Germany, 1992.Google Scholar
  35. [ten Teije & van Harmelen, 1994]
    A. ten Teije and F. van Harmelen: An Extended Spectrum of Logical Definitions for Diagnostic Systems. In Proceedings of DX-94 Fifth International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis, 1994.Google Scholar
  36. [Terpstra et al., 1993]
    P. Terpstra, G. van Heijst, B. Wielinga, and N. Shadtbolt: Knowledge Acquisition Support Through Generalised Directive Models. In [David et al., 1993], pp. 428–455.Google Scholar
  37. [Top & Akkermans, 1994]
    J. Top and H. Akkermans: Tasks and Ontologies in Engineering Modeling, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 41():585–617, 1994.Google Scholar
  38. [van Harmelen & ten Teije, 1995]
    F. van Harmelen and A. ten Teije: Approximations in Diagnosis: Motivations and Techniques. In C. Bioch and Y.H. Tan (eds.), Proceedings of the Dutch Conference on AI(NAIC'95), Rotterdam, June 1995.Google Scholar
  39. [Van de Velde, 1994]
    W. Van de Velde: A Constructivist View on Knowledge Engineering. In Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI'94), Amsterdam, August 1994.Google Scholar
  40. [Wielinga & Schreiber, 1994]
    B. J. Wielinga and A. Th. Schreiber: Conceptual Modelling of Large Reusable Knowledge Bases. In K. von Luck and H. Marburger (eds.): Management and Processing of Complex Data Structures, Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no 777, pages 181–200, Berlin, Germany, 1994.Google Scholar
  41. [Wielinga et al., 1995]
    B. Wielinga, J. M. Akkermans, and A. TH. Schreiber: A Formal Analysis of Parametric Design Problem Solving. In B. R. Gaines and M. A. Musen (eds.): Proceedings of the 8th Banff Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop (KAW-95), vol II, pp. 31/1–37/15, Alberta, Canada, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dieter Fensel
    • 1
  • Remco Straatman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Social Science Informatics (SWI)University of AmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations