Skip to main content

Modelling the CBR Life Cycle Using Description Logics ⋆

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1650))

Abstract

In this paper Description Logics are presented as a suitable formalism to model the CBR life cycle. We propose a general model to structure the knowledge needed in a CBR system, where adaptation knowledge is explicitly represented. Next, the CBR processes are described based on this model and the CBR system OoFRA is presented as an example of our approach.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ashley, K. & Aleven, V., 1993: “A logical representation for relevance criteria”, in Topics in CBR (Wess S., Althoff K. & Richter M., eds.), Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Borgida, A., 1996: “On the Relative Expressiveness of Description Logics and Predicate Logics”, Artificial Intelligence Journal, vol. 82, no. 1-2, pp. 353–367.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Brachman, R.J., McGuinness, D.L., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Resnick, L. & Borgida, A., 1991: “Living with CLASSIC: When and How to Use a KL-ONE-Like language”, in Principles of Semantic Networks, Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Coupey, P., Fouquere, C. & Salotti, S., 1998: “Formalizing Partial Matching and Similarity in CBR with a Description Logic”, Applied Artificial Intelligence, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 71–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Donini, F.M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., & Schaerf, A., 1996: “Reasoning in Description Logics”, in Foundation of Knowledge Representation, CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fernández-Chamizo, C., González-Calero, P., Gómez-Albarrán, M. & Herná;ndez-Yá ñez, L., 1996: “Supporting Object Reuse through Case-Based Reasoning”, Procs. EWCBR’ 96.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gómez-Albarrán, M., González-Calero, P. & Fernández-Chamizo, C., 1998: “Framework Understanding through Explicit Knowledge Representation”, Procs. IBERAMIA’ 98.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Heinsohn, J., Kudenko, D., Nebel, B., and Profitlich, H., 1994: “An empirical analysis of terminological representation systems”. Artificial Intelligence, vol. 68, pp. 367–398

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Koehler, J., 1994: “An Application of Terminological Logics to Case-based Reasoning”, Procs. KR’ 94.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Koehler, J., 1996: “Planning from Second Principles”, Artificial Intelligence, vol. 87, pp. 145–186.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Kolodner, J., 1993: Case-Based Reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Leake, D. B., Kinley, A., & Wilson, D., 1996: “Acquiring Case Adaptation Knowledge: A Hybrid Approach”, Pnrocs. AAAI’ 96.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Mac Gregor, R., 1991: “The evolving technology of classification-based knowledge representation systems”, in Principles of Semantic Networks: Explorations in the Representation of Knowledge (J. Sowa, ed.), Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Napoli, A., Lieber, J., & Courien, R., 1996: “Classification-Based Problem Solving in Case-Based Reasoning”, Procs. EWCBR’ 96.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Napoli, A., Lieber, J. & Simon, A., 1997: “A Classification-Based Approach to Case-Based Reasoning”, Procs. DL’ 97.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Plaza, E., 1995: “Cases as Terms: A feature term approach to the structured representation of cases”, Procs. ICCBR’ 95.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Richter, M., 1995: “The knowledge contained in Similarity Measures”. Invited talk given at ICCBR’95. October, 25. http://wwwagr.informatik.unikl.de/ lsa/CBR/Richtericcbr95remarks.html

  18. Salotti, S. & Ventos, V., 1998: “Study and Formalization of a Case-Based Reasoning System using a Description Logic”, in Procs. EWCBR’ 98.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Salton, G. & McGill, M.J., 1983: Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval, McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Tautz, C., & Althoff, K., 1997: “Using Case-Based Reasoning for Reusing Software Knowledge”, Procs. ICCBR’ 97.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Yen, J., Teh, H.,& Liu X., 1994: “Using Description Logics for Software Reuse and Case-Based Reasoning”, Procs. DL’ 94.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Gómez-Albarrán, M., González-Calero, P.A., Díaz-Agudo, B., Fernández-Conde, C. (1999). Modelling the CBR Life Cycle Using Description Logics ⋆. In: Althoff, KD., Bergmann, R., Branting, L. (eds) Case-Based Reasoning Research and Development. ICCBR 1999. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1650. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48508-2_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48508-2_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-66237-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-48508-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics