Knowledge Representation Chapter 4. 2 What is KR? R. Davis, H. Schrobe, P. Szolovits (1993): 1.A...

17
Knowledge Representation Chapter 4

Transcript of Knowledge Representation Chapter 4. 2 What is KR? R. Davis, H. Schrobe, P. Szolovits (1993): 1.A...

Page 1: Knowledge Representation Chapter 4. 2 What is KR? R. Davis, H. Schrobe, P. Szolovits (1993): 1.A surrogate 2.A set of ontological commitments 3.A fragmentary.

Knowledge Representation

Chapter 4

Page 2: Knowledge Representation Chapter 4. 2 What is KR? R. Davis, H. Schrobe, P. Szolovits (1993): 1.A surrogate 2.A set of ontological commitments 3.A fragmentary.

2

What is KR?

R. Davis, H. Schrobe, P. Szolovits (1993):

1. A surrogate

2. A set of ontological commitments

3. A fragmentary theory of intelligent reasoning

4. A medium for efficient computation

5. A medium of human expressions

Page 3: Knowledge Representation Chapter 4. 2 What is KR? R. Davis, H. Schrobe, P. Szolovits (1993): 1.A surrogate 2.A set of ontological commitments 3.A fragmentary.

3

Representation and Mapping

• Facts: things we want to represent.

• Representations of facts: things we can manipulate.

Page 4: Knowledge Representation Chapter 4. 2 What is KR? R. Davis, H. Schrobe, P. Szolovits (1993): 1.A surrogate 2.A set of ontological commitments 3.A fragmentary.

4

Representation and Mapping

FactsInternal

Representations

English Representations

reasoning programs

English understanding

English generation

Page 5: Knowledge Representation Chapter 4. 2 What is KR? R. Davis, H. Schrobe, P. Szolovits (1993): 1.A surrogate 2.A set of ontological commitments 3.A fragmentary.

5

Representation and Mapping

Initialfacts

Internal representationsof initial facts

desired real reasoning

forward representation mapping

Finalfacts

Internal representations

of final facts

backward representation mapping

operation of program

Page 6: Knowledge Representation Chapter 4. 2 What is KR? R. Davis, H. Schrobe, P. Szolovits (1993): 1.A surrogate 2.A set of ontological commitments 3.A fragmentary.

6

Representation and Mapping

• Spot is a dog

• Every dog has a tail

Spot has a tail

Page 7: Knowledge Representation Chapter 4. 2 What is KR? R. Davis, H. Schrobe, P. Szolovits (1993): 1.A surrogate 2.A set of ontological commitments 3.A fragmentary.

7

Representation and Mapping

• Spot is a dog

dog(Spot)

• Every dog has a tail

x: dog(x) hastail(x)

hastail(Spot)

Spot has a tail

Page 8: Knowledge Representation Chapter 4. 2 What is KR? R. Davis, H. Schrobe, P. Szolovits (1993): 1.A surrogate 2.A set of ontological commitments 3.A fragmentary.

8

Representation and Mapping

• Fact-representation mapping is not one-to-one.

• Good representation can make a reasoning program trivial.

Page 9: Knowledge Representation Chapter 4. 2 What is KR? R. Davis, H. Schrobe, P. Szolovits (1993): 1.A surrogate 2.A set of ontological commitments 3.A fragmentary.

9

Representation and Mapping

The Multilated Checkerboard Problem

“Consider a normal checker board from which two squares, in opposite corners, have been removed.

The task is to cover all the remaining squares exactly with donimoes, each of which covers two squares. No overlapping, either of dominoes on top of each other or of dominoes over the boundary of the multilated board are allowed.

Can this task be done?”

Page 10: Knowledge Representation Chapter 4. 2 What is KR? R. Davis, H. Schrobe, P. Szolovits (1993): 1.A surrogate 2.A set of ontological commitments 3.A fragmentary.

10

Representation and Mapping

No. black squares = 30

No. white square = 32

Page 11: Knowledge Representation Chapter 4. 2 What is KR? R. Davis, H. Schrobe, P. Szolovits (1993): 1.A surrogate 2.A set of ontological commitments 3.A fragmentary.

11

Representation and Mapping

Good representation:

• Representational adequacy

• Inferential adequacy

• Inferential efficiency

• Acquisitional efficiency

Page 12: Knowledge Representation Chapter 4. 2 What is KR? R. Davis, H. Schrobe, P. Szolovits (1993): 1.A surrogate 2.A set of ontological commitments 3.A fragmentary.

12

Approaches to KR

Simple relational knowledge:

• Provides very weak inferential capabilities.

• May serve as the input to powerful inference engines.

Page 13: Knowledge Representation Chapter 4. 2 What is KR? R. Davis, H. Schrobe, P. Szolovits (1993): 1.A surrogate 2.A set of ontological commitments 3.A fragmentary.

13

Approaches to KR

Inheritable knowledge:

• Objects are organized into classes and classes are organized in a generalization hierarchy.

• Inheritance is a powerful form of inference, but not adequate.

Page 14: Knowledge Representation Chapter 4. 2 What is KR? R. Davis, H. Schrobe, P. Szolovits (1993): 1.A surrogate 2.A set of ontological commitments 3.A fragmentary.

14

Approaches to KR

Inferential knowledge:

• Facts represented in a logical form, which facilitates reasoning.

• An inference engine is required.

Page 15: Knowledge Representation Chapter 4. 2 What is KR? R. Davis, H. Schrobe, P. Szolovits (1993): 1.A surrogate 2.A set of ontological commitments 3.A fragmentary.

15

Approaches to KR

Procedural knowledge:

• Representation of “how to make it” rather than “what it is”.

• May have inferential efficiency, but no inferential adequacy and acquisitional efficiency.

Page 16: Knowledge Representation Chapter 4. 2 What is KR? R. Davis, H. Schrobe, P. Szolovits (1993): 1.A surrogate 2.A set of ontological commitments 3.A fragmentary.

16

Approaches to KR

Choosing the Granularity:

• High-level facts may not be adequate for inference.

• Low-level primitives may require a lot of storage.

Page 17: Knowledge Representation Chapter 4. 2 What is KR? R. Davis, H. Schrobe, P. Szolovits (1993): 1.A surrogate 2.A set of ontological commitments 3.A fragmentary.

17

Homework

ReadingR. Davis, H. Schrobe, P. Szolovits (1993): “What is a

knowledge representation?”