Extracting viewpoints from knowledge bases
AAAI '94 Proceedings of the twelfth national conference on Artificial intelligence (vol. 1)
Knowledge entry as the graphical assembly of components
Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Knowledge capture
Microsoft SQL Server 7.0 Data Warehousing Online Training
Microsoft SQL Server 7.0 Data Warehousing Online Training
A web-based ontology browsing and editing system
Eighteenth national conference on Artificial intelligence
Usable natural language interfaces through menu-based natural language understanding
CHI '83 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Semantic Segment Extraction and Matching for Internet FAQ Retrieval
IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering
Capturing and answering questions posed to a knowledge-based system
Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Knowledge capture
Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Knowledge capture
Interpreting loosely encoded questions
AAAI'04 Proceedings of the 19th national conference on Artifical intelligence
ECDL'09 Proceedings of the 13th European conference on Research and advanced technology for digital libraries
Hi-index | 0.00 |
In order for a knowledge capture system to be effective, it needs to not only acquire general domain knowledge from experts, but also capture the specific problem-solving scenarios and questions which those experts are interested in solving using that knowledge. For some tasks, this latter aspect of knowledge capture is straightforward. In other cases, in particular for systems aimed at a wide variety of tasks, the question-posing aspect of knowledge capture can be a challenge in its own right. In this paper, we present the approach we have developed to address this challenge, based on the creation of a catalog of domain-independent question types and the extension of question template methods with graphical tools. Our goal was that domain experts could directly convey complex questions to a machine, in a form which it could then reason with. We evaluated the resulting system over several weeks, and in this paper we report some important lessons learned from this evaluation, revealing several interesting strengths and weaknesses of the approach.