Skip to main content

Evaluating a formal modelling language

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
A Future for Knowledge Acquisition (EKAW 1994)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 867))

  • 155 Accesses

Abstract

Formal knowledge modelling languages have a number of advantages over informal languages, such as their precise meaning and the possibility to derive properties through formal proofs. However, these formal languages also suffer from problems which limit their practical usefulness: they are often not expressive enough to deal with real world applications, formal models are complex and hard to read, and constructing a formal model is a difficult, error prone and expensive process. The goal of the study presented in this paper is to investigate the usability of one such formal KBS modelling language, called (ML)2. In order to analyse the properties of (ML)2 that influence its usability, we designed a set of evaluation criteria. We then applied (ML)2 in two case-studies and scored the language on our evaluation criteria. A separate case-study was devoted to analysing the possibilities for reusing formal model fragment. (ML)2 scored well on most of our criteria. This leads us to conjecture that the close correspondence between the informal KADS models and the formal (ML)2 models avoids some of the problems that traditionally plague formal specification languages. The case-studies revealed problems with the reuse of formal model fragments. These problems were caused by the (inevitable) ambiguous interpretations of the informal model fragments. Finally, extensive software-support is required when constructing formal specifications. Our case-studies showed that the close correspondence between formal and informal models makes it possible to provide more support (and particularly: different kinds of support) than have traditionally been considered.

The research reported here was carried out in the course of the KADS-II project. This project is partially funded by the ESPRIT Programme of the Commission of the European Communities as project number 5248. The partners in this project are Cap Gemini Innovation (F), Cap Gemini Logic (S), Netherlands Energy Research Foundation ECN (NL), ENTEL SA (ESP), Lloyd's Register (UK), Swedish Institute of Computer Science (S), Siemens AG (D), Touche Ross MC (UK), University of Amsterdam (NL) and Free University of Brussels (B).

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. M. Aben. CommonKADS inferences. Report KADS-II/M2/TR/UvA/041/1.0, June 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  2. M. Aben, J. Balder, and F. van Harmelen. Support for the formalisation and validation of KADS expertise models. Report KADS-II/M2/TR/UvA/63/1.0, January 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  3. J. R. Balder and J. M. Akkermans. TheME: an environment for building formal KADS-II models of expertise. In Proceedings of the 12th Int. Conf. on Expert Systems and their Applications, Avignon, 1992. Also in: AI Communications, 5(3), 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  4. J. Balder, F. van Harmelen, and M. Aben. A KADS/ML2 model of a scheduling task. In Treur and Wetter [17], pages 15–44.

    Google Scholar 

  5. J. A. Breuker, B. J. Wielinga, M. van Someren, R. de Hoog, A. Th. Schreiber, P. de Greef, B. Bredeweg, J. Wielemaker, J. P. Billault, M. Davoodi, and S. A. Hayward. Model Driven Knowledge Acquisition: Interpretation Models. ESPRIT Project P1098 Deliverable D1 (task A1), University of Amsterdam and STL Ltd, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  6. D. Craigen, S. Gerhart, and T. Ralston. An international survey of industrial applications of formal methods. Technical report, U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology administration, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Computer Systems Laboratory, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, USA, March 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  7. D. Fensel, J. Angele, and D. Landes. Knowledge representation and acquisition language (KARL). In Proceedings 11th International workshop on expert systems and their applications, pages 821–833, Avignon, France, May 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  8. J. Fox. On the soundness and safety of expert systems. AI in Medicine, 5:159–179, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  9. D. Harel. Dynamic logic. In D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. II, pages 497–604. Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  10. L. in 't Veld, W. Jonker, and J.W. Spec. The specification of complex reasoning tasks in KBSSF. In Treur and Wetter [17], pages 233–256.

    Google Scholar 

  11. J. Kamps and N.J.E. Wijngaards. (RP)2: A KADS-solution for the office assignment problem, student report, July 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  12. W. Karbach, A. Voß, R. Schukey, and U. Drouwen. Model-K: Prototyping at the knowledge level. In Proceedings Expert Systems-91, pages 501–512, Avignon, France, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  13. D. Landes, D. Fensel, and J. Angele. Formalizing and operationalizing a design task with KARL. In Treur and Wetter [17], pages 105–142.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Marc Linster. Linking modeling to make sense and modeling to implement systems in an operational environment. In Thomas Wetter et al., editors, Current developments in knowledge acquisition: EKAW92, Lecture Notes in AI, vol. 509, Springer-Verlag, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  15. A. Th. Schreiber. Sisyphus'91: Modelling the office assignment domain. In M. Linster, editor, Sisyphus'91: Models of Problem Solving, Arbeitspapiere der GMD 663, chapter 11. GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  16. M. E. Stickel. A prolog technology theorem prover: implementation by an extended prolog compiler. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 4(4):353–380, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  17. J. Treur and Th. Wetter, editors. Formal Specification of Complex Reasoning Systems, Workshop Series. Ellis Horwood, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  18. M. van 't Holt. Modelling of visual perception for a recognition task in noise analysis. Master's thesis, Dept. of Information Theory, Fac. of Electrical Engineering, Technical Univ. of Delft, August 1993. (in Dutch).

    Google Scholar 

  19. F. van Harmelen and J. R. Balder. (ML)2: a formal language for KADS models of expertise. Knowledge Acquisition, 4(1), 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  20. I. van Langevelde, A. Philipsen, and J. Treur. An example reasoning task description. In Treur and Wetter [17], pages 7–14.

    Google Scholar 

  21. J. Walther, A. Voß, M. Linster, T. Hemman, H. Voß, and W. Karbach. MoMo. Technical Report Arbeitspapiere No. 658, GMD, Juni 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  22. T. Wetter. First-order logic foundation of the KADS conceptual model. In B. J. Wielinga, J. Boose, B. Gaines, G. Schreiber, and M. van Someren, editors, Current trends in knowledge acquisition, pages 356–375, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, May 1990. IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. B. J. Wielinga, A. Th. Schreiber, and J. A. Breuker. KADS: A modelling approach to knowledge engineering. Knowledge Acquisition, 4(1):5–53, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  24. R. Wols. Knowledge acquisition, modelling and formalisation for METEODES. Master's thesis, Dept. of Information Theory, Fac. of Electrical Engineering, Technical Univ. of Delft, July 1993. (in Dutch).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Luc Steels Guus Schreiber Walter Van de Velde

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1994 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Ruiz, F., van Harmelen, F., Aben, M., van de Plassche, J. (1994). Evaluating a formal modelling language. In: Steels, L., Schreiber, G., Van de Velde, W. (eds) A Future for Knowledge Acquisition. EKAW 1994. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 867. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-58487-0_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-58487-0_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-58487-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-49006-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics