Skip to main content

A Comparative Study of the Representation Languages Used in the Machine Learning Toolbox

  • Conference paper
ESPRIT ’90
  • 60 Accesses

Abstract

This paper presents some early results from the Machine Learning Toolbox (MLT) project. The MLT will be a system that recommends and implements one of several machine learning algorithms or systems for an application. The learning algorithms are being contributed by various members of the consortium, and as such have been developed with their own internal knowledge representation languages. In order for the user to supply application data in a form which can be understood by more than one algorithm, and in order for any algorithm to be capable of passing its results to any other algorithm, a Common Knowledge Representation Language (CKRL) has to be developed. The first stage in this task has been to investigate the different knowledge representation languages of the tools, with the aim of emphasising their commonalities and differences. The results of this comparison are currently being used as a basis for forming the first version of a CKRL We also discuss the possible roles for the CKRL within the MLT, and select that of an interface language between the different sub-components of the MLT as being the most flexible. The CKRL aims to solve the problem of mapping entities of the epistemic level into the logic level (and vice versa) in a pragmatic way, but it will not attempt to solve the problems of the different expressive powers of each of the current algorithm’s formalisms, or to evaluate the suitability of different languages for learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Brachman, R. 1979: On the Epistemological Status of Semantic Networks, in: Findler (ed): Associate Networks - Representation and Use of Knowledge by Computers, Academic Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, P., 1989: Deliverable 4.0 - Functional Specification of CN and AQ

    Google Scholar 

  • Feng, C., 1989: Deliverable 4.0 - Functional Specification of CIGOL

    Google Scholar 

  • Freksa, C., Furbach, U., Dirlich, G. 1984: Cognition and Representation - An Overview of Knowledge Representation Issues in Cognitive Science, in: Laubsch (ed.) Procs. of the German Workshop on Al, GWAI84, Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Genesereth, M.R., Nilsson, N.J. 1988 (2nd ed.): Logical Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann

    Google Scholar 

  • INRIA, 1989: Deliverable 4.0 - Description of SICLA

    Google Scholar 

  • Intellisoft, 1989: Deliverable 4.0 - Description of KBG

    Google Scholar 

  • Intellisoft/LRI, 1989: Deliverable 4.0 - Description of APT

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebbe, J., Vignes, R., 1989: Deliverable 4.0 - Functional Specification of MAKEY

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig, A. 1989: Deliverable 1.1.1 - Specification of the Overall Architecture of the MLT

    Google Scholar 

  • Michalski, R., 1983: A Theory and Methodology of Inductive Learning, in: Michalski, Carbonell, Mitchell (eds): Machine Learning - An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Volume 1, Tioga Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Morik, K., Rouveirol, C., Sims, P. 1989: Deliverable 2.1 Comparative Study of the Representation Languages Used by the Systems of the MLT

    Google Scholar 

  • Niblett, T., 1989: Functional Specification if ReallD

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinlan, J.R., 1983: Learning Efficient Classification Procedures and their Application to Chess End Games, in: Michalski, Carbonell, Mitchell (eds): Machine Learning - An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Volume 1, Tioga Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T., 1989: Deliverable 4.0 - The DMP, Description and Status

    Google Scholar 

  • Ralambondrainy, H., 1989 How to deal with categorical data using clustering methods in: R. Coppi and S.Bolasco (eds): Multiway Data Analysis, North Holland

    Google Scholar 

  • Sims, P., 1989: Deliverable 4.0 - LASH Algorithm Description

    Google Scholar 

  • Sleeman, D., Oehlmann, R., Davidge, R. 1989: Deliverable 5.0 - Specification of Consultant-0

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrobel, S., 1989: Deliverable 4.0 - Description of MOBAL

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1990 ECSC, EEC, EAEC, Brussels and Luxembourg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Causse, K., Sims, P., Morik, K., Rouveirol, C. (1990). A Comparative Study of the Representation Languages Used in the Machine Learning Toolbox. In: ESPRIT ’90. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0705-8_23

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0705-8_23

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-6803-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-009-0705-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics