Diekmann, J E and Kraiem, Z (1988) Explanation of construction engineering knowledge in expert systems. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 114(3), pp. 364-389. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Critical attention is being given to the application of expert systems to civil and construction engineering problems. A central feature of expert systems is the ability to explain the reasoning that these systems are using. This paper provides a succinct survey of some of the explanation features commonly found in expert systems. The paper presents the logic and computer code for a C language explanation facility which was developed for use with the M.1 expert system shell. The C program is context-sensitive and allows explanations to be nested so the user can request progressively more detailed explanations. In addition to the explanation feature, the C program will allow access to ASCII files contain a variety of information. The C program has been used in some applications to access “help,” “conclusions,” “warning,” or “assumption” files. The paper provides a demonstration of the explanation program in a simple civil engineering context.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | survey, construction engineering, reasoning, expert system, program |
| Subjects: | data management, engineering methods, data collection methods, cognitive psychology, software systems |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Digital Applications, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here