Specification of dynamics for knowledge-based systems

  • Pascal van Eck
  • Joeri Engelfriet
  • Dieter Fensel
  • Frank van Harmelen
  • Yde Venema
  • Mark Willems
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1472)


During the last years, a number of formal specification languages for knowledge-based systems have been developed. Characteristic for knowledge-based systems are a complex knowledge base and an inference engine which uses this knowledge to solve a given problem. Specification languages for knowledge-based systems have to cover both aspects: they have to provide means to specify a complex and large amount of knowledge and they have to provide means to specify the dynamic reasoning behaviour of a knowledge-based system. This paper will focus on the second aspect, which is an issue considered to be unsolved. For this purpose, we have surveyed existing approaches in related areas of research. We have taken approaches for the specification of information systems (i.e., Language for Conceptual Modelling and Troll), approaches for the specification of database updates and the dynamics of logic programs (Transaction Logic and Dynamic Database Logic), and the approach of Abstract State Machines.


Temporal Logic Elementary Transition Specification Language Reasoning Process Operational Semantic 
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.
    J. A. Bergstra and J. W. Klop. Algebra of communicating processes with abstraction. Theoretical Computer Science, 37:77–121, 1985.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. Bolognesi and E. Brinksma. Introduction to the ISO specification language LOTOS. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 14, 1987.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A.J. Bonner and M. Kifer. Transaction logic programming. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP), pages 257–279, Budapest, Hungary, 1993. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. Brazier, P. van Langen, J. Treur, N. Wijngaards, and M. Willems. Modelling an elevator design task in DESIRE: the VT example. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Special Issue on Sisyphus-VT (A.Th. Schreiber and W.P. Birmingham, Eds.), 44(3–4):469–520, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Denker, J. Ramos, C. Caleiro, and A. Sernadas. A linear temporal logic approach to objects with transactions. In Michael Johnson, editor, Algebraic Methodology and Software Technology: 6th International Conference, AMAST '97, volume 1349 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 170–184. Springer-Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. van Eck, J. Engelfriet, D. Fensel, F. van Harmelen, Y. Venema, and M. Willems. A survey of languages for specifying dynamics: A knowledge engineering perspective. Technical Report IR-447, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, 1998.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Fensel. Formal specification languages in knowledge and software engineering. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 10(4), 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Fensel. The Knowledge Acquisition and Representation Language KARL. Kluwer Academic Publ., Boston, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Fensel and R. Groenboom. MLPM: Defing a semantics and axiomatization for specifying the reasoning process of knowledge-based systems. In Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-96), Budapest, August 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Fensel and R. Straatman. The essense of problem-solving-methods: Making assumptions for gaining efficiency. Journal of Human Computer Studies, 1998. (to appear).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    D. Gabbay. What is a Logical System?, volume 4 of Studies in Logic and Computation. Oxford University Clarendon Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Y. Gurevich. Evolving algebras 1993: Lipari guide. In E. Börger, editor, Specification and Validation Methods. Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Harel. Dynamic logic. In D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. II: extensions of Classical Logic, pages 497–604. Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1984.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    F. van Harmelen and J. Balder. (ML)2: A formal language for KADS conceptual models. Knowledge Acquisition, 4(1), 1992.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    C. B. Jones. Systematic Software Development Using VDM. Prentice Hall, 2nd edition, 1990.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. Jungclaus, G. Saake, Th. Hartmann, and C. Sernadas. Troll—a language for object-oriented specification of information systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 14(2):175–211, April 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    F. Kroeger. Temporal Logic of Programs. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    I. van Langevelde, A. Philipsen, and J. Treur. Formal specification of compositional architectures. In Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-92), Vienna, Austria, August 1992.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Linster (ed.). Special issue on the Sisyphus 91/92 models. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 40:2, 1994.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    R. Milner. A Calculus of Communicating Systems, volume 92 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1980.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    R. Milner. Communication and Concurrency. Prentice Hall Int., New York, 1989.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    B. Nebel. Artificial intelligence: A computational perspective. In G. Brewka, editor, Principals of Knowledge Representation, Studies in Logic, Language and Information, pages 237–266. CSLI Publications, 1996.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    C. Pierret-Golbreich and X. Talon. TFL: An algebraic language to specify the dynamic behaviour of knowledge-based systems. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 11(3):253–280, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    K. Poeck, D. Fensel, D. Landes, and J. Angele. Combining KARL and CRLM for designing vertical transportation systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Special Issue on Sisyphus-VT (A.Th. Schreiber and W.P. Birmingham, Eds.), 44(3–4):435–467, 1996.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    A. Sernadas, C. Sernadas, and J.F. Costa. Object specification logic. Journal of Logic and Computation, 5(5):603–630, October 1995.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    J. W. Spee and L. in 't Veld. The semantics of KBSSF: A language for KBS design. Knowledge Acquisition, 6, 1994.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    J. M. Spivey. The Z Notation. A Reference Manual. Prentice Hall, New York, 2nd edition edition, 1992.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    P. Spruit, R. Wieringa, and J.-J. Meyer. Dynamic database logic: the first-order case. In V.W. Lipeck and B. Thalheim, editors, Fourth International Workshop on Foundations of Models and Languages for Data and Objects, pages 102–120. Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    P. Spruit, R. Wieringa, and J.-J. Meyer. Axiomatization, declarative semantics and operational semantics of passive and active updates in logic databases. Journal of Logic and Computation, 5(1), 1995.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    J. Treur and Th. Wetter, editors. Formal Specification of Complex Reasoning Systems. Ellis Horwood, New York, 1993.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    R. J. Wieringa. LCM and MCM: Specification of a control system using dynamic logic and process algebra. In C. Lewerentz and T. Lindner, editors, Formal Development of Reactive Systems: Case Study Production Cell, volume 891 of Lecture Notes Computer Science, pages 333–355. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    M. Wirsing. Algebraic specification. In J. van Leeuwen, editor, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science. Elsevier Science Publishers, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pascal van Eck
    • 1
  • Joeri Engelfriet
    • 1
  • Dieter Fensel
    • 2
  • Frank van Harmelen
    • 1
  • Yde Venema
    • 3
  • Mark Willems
    • 4
  1. 1.Faculty of Mathematics and Computer ScienceVrije Universiteit AmsterdamHV AmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Institut AIFBUniversity of KarlsruheKarlsruheGermany
  3. 3.Institute for Logic, Language and ComputationUniversity of AmsterdamTV AmsterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Bolesian B.V.HN HelmondThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations