Advertisement

Knowledge-Action Structures

  • Shirley GregorEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

An argument can be made that the whole of modern computing, including information systems, depends on the discovery that knowledge, as in applied logic, can take on a machine form that guides action by the machine (see Hodges in Alan Turing: the enigma. Penguin Random House, London, 2012). Denning and Martell in Great principles of computing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2015), in attempting to identify important principles that underpin computing as a whole, claim that we still have hardly come to grips with the implications of information (knowledge) becoming action in a machine. Thus, the aim of this speculative chapter is to explore knowledge-action structures in computing related disciplines. Approaches to knowledge-action structures reviewed include those from data and process modelling and from artificial intelligence. It can be seen that divergent ontological positions underlie different approaches. An open question remains. Can these different positions co-exist, as in Wittgenstein’s language games? Or is there a need for some unifying framework, as Russell and Norvig in Artificial intelligence: a modern approach. international edition (2002) argue is necessary in a demanding domain?

Keywords

Computing Information systems Knowledge Action Ontology Action logic Modelling Artificial intelligence 

References

  1. Aguilar-Savén, R. S. (2004). Business process modelling: Review and framework. International Journal of Production Economics, 90(2), 129–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker, J., Kugeler, M., & Rosemann, M. (2013). Process management: A guide for the design of business processes. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  3. Bunge, M. (1967). Scientific Research II (Vol. 3/2). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  4. Burton-Jones, A., Recker, J., Indulska, M., Green, P., & Weber, R. (2017). Assessing representation theory with a framework for pursuing success and failure. MIS Quarterly, 41(4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., Galliers, R., Henfridsson, O., Newell, S., & Vidgen, R. (2014). The sociomateriality of information systems: Current status, future directions. MIS Quarterly, 38(3), 809–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chandra, L., Seidel, S., & Gregor, S. (2015). Prescriptive knowledge in IS research: Conceptualizing design principles in terms of materiality, action, and boundary conditions. In Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 4039–4048).Google Scholar
  7. Connolly, T., Begg, C., & Holowczak, R. (2008). Business database systems. Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  8. Denning, P. J., & Martell, C. (2015). Great principles of computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Eriksson, O., Johannesson, P., & Bergholtz, M. (2018). Institutional ontology for conceptual modeling. Journal of Information Technology, 1–19.Google Scholar
  10. Gehlert, A., Pfeiffer, D., & Becker, J. (2007). The BWW-model as method engineering theory. In Proceedings of the 13th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2007).Google Scholar
  11. Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of communicative action: Reason and rationalization of society (p. 1). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hodges, A. (2012). Alan turing: The enigma the book that inspired the film the imitation game - updated edition. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Knight, W. (2017). The dark secret at the heart of AI. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved September 16, 2018 from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/604087/the-dark-secret-at-the-heart-of-ai/.
  14. Niles, I., & Pease, A. (2001). Towards a standard upper ontology. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems-FOIS 2001 (pp. 2–9).Google Scholar
  15. Orlikowski, W., & Scott, S. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Popper, K. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  17. Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2002). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. International edition.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0925-2312(95)90020-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Segerberg, K., Meyer, J.-J., & Kracht, M. (2016). The logic of action. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/logic-action.
  19. Shneiderman, B. (2010). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction. Pearson Education India.Google Scholar
  20. Singh, M. P. (2000). A social semantics for agent communication languages. Issues in agent communication. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Sowa, J. F. (2000). Knowledge representation: Logical, philosophical, and computational foundations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Van der Aalst, W., & Van Hee, K. (2002). Workflow management: Models, methods, and systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (1993). Research commentary: Information systems and conceptual modeling—a research agenda. Journal of Information Systems, 4(2), 217–237.  https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.13.4.363.69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Weber, R. (1997). Ontological foundations of information systems. Melbourne: Coopers & Lybrand Accounting Research Methodology Monograph No. 4.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations