Blackboard Systems

  • Ram D. Sriram


Problem solving methods may be classified based on the amount and specificity of domain knowledge they require (see [2], page 372):
  1. 1.

    If domain knowledge is not available in a proper form then simple search methods, such as depth first search may be used (Chapter 2).

  2. 2.

    If specific domain knowledge in the form of plans, rules, or procedures exists, such knowledge may be instantiated directly (Chapter 4).

  3. 3.

    If on the other hand general decompositions (product hierarchy) exist but no specific ones do, the general plan can be used to decompose the problem by partitioning the problem or providing islands in the search space; the solution is obtained by utilizing multiple knowledge sources (current chapter).

  4. 4.

    If no specific solution plans exist but the problem resembles one solved previously, analogical and case-based reasoning may be applied to transfer the solution of a similar past problem to the new situation (Chapter 6).

  5. 5.

    If models of systems exist and the purpose is to study the qualitative behavior of a system or aggregations of systems then qualitative reasoning techniques can be used to envision the behavior (see Chapter 7).

  6. 6.

    If existing domain knowledge is insufficient, machine learning techniques can be used to derive new knowledge (see Chapter 8, Chapter 9, Section, and [19]).



Data Panel Knowledge Source Test Vector Level Shift Inference Mechanism 
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. 1.
    Balzer, R., Erman, L., London, P., and Williams, C, “HEARSAY-III: A Domain Independent Framework for Expert Systems,” Proceedings of the First NCAI, Morgan Kaurfmann Publishers, pp. 108–110, 1980.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carbonell, J. G., “Derivational Analogy: A Theory of Reconstructive Problem Solving and Expertise Acquisition,” Machine Learning, Vol. 2, Michalski, R. S., Carbonell, J. G., Mitchell, T. M. (Editors), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc, Los Altos, California, 1986.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Case, M. P., McConkey, I., McGraw, K., and Lu, S-Y., “Multiple Cooperating Knowledge Sources for the Design of Building Energy Systems,” ASHRAE Transactions, Volume 1, Number 2, pages 490–500, 1990.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Corkill, D. and Lesser, V. R., “A Goal-Directed HEARSAY-II Architecture: Unifying Datardirected and Goal-directed Control,” Proceedings of the Second NCAI, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1982.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davis, R., “Diagnostic Reasoning Based on Structure and Behavior,” In Qualitative Reasoning about Physical Systems, Bobrow, D. (editor), MIT Press, pp. 347–410, 1985.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Englemore, R. and Morgan, A. (Editors), Blackboard Systems, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1988Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Erman, L. D., Hayes-Roth, F., Lesser, V. R., and Reddy, D. R., “The HEARSAY-II Speech Understanding System: Integrating Knowledge to Resolve Uncertainty,” ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 213–253, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Erman, L. D. and Lesser, V. R., “A Multi-Level Organization for Problem Solving Using Many, Diverse, Cooperating Sources of Knowledge,” Proceedings Fourth IJCAI, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, pp. 483–490, 1975.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hayes-Roth, B., Johnson, M.V., Garvey, A., and Hewett, M., “Application of the BB1 Blackboard Architecture to Arrangement-Assembly Tasks,” International Journal for Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, Special Issue on Blackboard Systems, 1(2) 85–94.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hayes-Roth, B., Garver, A., Johnson, M. V., and Hewett, M., “PROTEAN: Deriving Protein Structure from Constraints,” Proceedings of Fifth NCAI, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, pp. 904–909, 1986.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hayes-Roth, B., “A Blackboard Architecture for Control,” Artificial Intelligence, Elsevier Publishers, pp. 251–321, 1985.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hayes-Roth, B, Hayes-Roth, F., Rosenschein, F., and Cammarata, S., “Modelling Planning as an Incremental Opportunistic Process,” Proceedings Sixth IJCAI, William/Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, pp. 375–383, 1979.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jagannathan, V., Dodhiawala, R., and Baum, L. (Editors), Blackboard Architectures and Applications, Academic Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Laliberty, T., et al., “A Blackboard Architecture for Integrated Process Planning/Production Scheduling,” In Proceedings of the ASME Design for Manufacturing, ASME, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Murphy, A., et al., “’Blackboard Approach to Process Planning Problems,” In Knowledge-Based Expert Systems for Engineering: Planning and Design, Sriram, D. and Adey, R. (Editors), Computational Mechanics Publications, pp. 35–51, 1987.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nii, P. and Brown, H., AAAI Tutorial Notes No. HA2, American Association of Artificial Intelligence, 1987.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nii, P., Feigenbaum, E., Anton, J., and Rockmore, A., “Signal-to-Symbol Transformation: HASP/SIAP Case Study,” AI Magazine, Vol. 2, No. 2., pp. 23–35, Spring 1982.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nii, P., “The Blackboard Model of Problem Solving: Part I,” AI Magazine, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 38–53, 1986.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reich, Y. and Fenves, S. J., Floor System Design in SOAR: A Case Study of Learning to Learn, Technical Report No: EDRC-12-26-88, Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, 1988.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sriram, D., Logcher, R., Groleau. N., and Cherneff, J., DICE: An Object Oriented Programming Environment for Cooperative Engineering Design, Technical Report IESL-89-03, IESL, Dept. of Civil Engineering, M. I, T., 1989.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tommelein, I.D., Zouein, P.P., “Interactive Dynamic Layout Planning,” ASCE, J. of Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt, 119(2), 266–287, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tommelein, I.D., SightPlan — An Expert System that Models and Augments Human Decision-Making for Designing Construction Site Layouts, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (available from University Microfilms), August 1989. (For a shorter version see “Constructing Site Layouts using Blackboard Reasoning with Layered Knowledge,” In Allen, R. (editor), Expert Systems for Civil Engineers: Knowledge Representation, ASCE Monograph Series, pages 214-258, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 1992.)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tommelein, I.D., Hayes-Roth, B., Levitt, R.E., “Altering the Sight Plan Knowledge-based Systems,” J. of Artificial Intell. in Engrg., Design, and Mfrg., (AI EDAM), 6(1), 19–37, 1992.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tommelein, I., Levitt, R. E., and Hayes-Roth, B., “Using Expert Systems for the Layout of Temporary Facilities on Construction Site,” CIB W-65 Symposium, Organization and Management of Construction, Birkshire, 1987 (See also Tommelein’s Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ram D. Sriram
    • 1
  1. 1.Manufacturing Systems Integration Division Manufacturing Engineering LaboratoryNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyGaithersburgUSA

Personalised recommendations