Artificial Intelligence

& Expert System

UNIT II
Knowledge Representation (KR)
 Introduction to KR
Representation of knowledge and the reasoning process
are central to the entire field of artificial intelligence.

The primary component of a knowledge-based agent is its

knowledge-base.

A knowledge-base is a set of sentences.

Each sentence is expressed in a language called the

knowledge representation language.
 Introduction to KR
Sentences represent some assertions about the world.

There must mechanisms to derive new sentences from old

ones.

This process is known as inference or reasoning.

Inference must obey the primary requirement that the new

sentences should follow logically from the previous ones.
 Introduction to KR
Logic is the primary vehicle for representing and reasoning
about knowledge.

A logic consists of two parts, a language and a method of

reasoning. The logical language, in turn, has two aspects,
syntax and semantics:

Syntax specifies the symbols in the language and how they

can be combined to form sentences. Hence facts about the
world are represented as sentences in logic.
 Introduction to KR
Semantics: It specifies what facts in the world a sentence
refers to. Hence, also specifies how you assign a truth value
to a sentence based on its meaning in the world.

A fact is a claim about the world, and may be true or false.

Syntactic Inference Method: The rules for determining a

subset of logical expressions, called theorems of the logic.
It refers to mechanical method for computing (deriving)
new (true) sentences from existing sentences.
 Introduction to KR
Facts are claims about the world that are True or False,
whereas a representation is an expression (sentence) in
some language that can be encoded in a computer
program and stands for the objects and relations in the
world. We need to ensure that the representation is
consistent with reality, so that the following figure holds:
 Knowledge agent
An agent perceives its environment through sensors.

The complete set of inputs at a given time is called a percept.

The current percept, or a sequence of percepts can influence

the actions of an agent.

The agent can change the environment through actuators or

effectors.

An operation involving an effector is called an action. Actions

can be grouped into action sequences.
 Knowledge agent
Examples of Agents:
Humans can be looked upon as agents. They have eyes, ears,
skin, taste buds, etc. for sensors; and hands, fingers, legs,
mouth for effectors.

Robots are agents. Robots may have camera, sonar, infrared,

bumper, etc. for sensors. They can have grippers, wheels,
lights, speakers, etc. for actuators.

We also have software agents or softbots that have some

functions as sensors and some functions as actuators.
Askjeeves.com is an example of a softbot.
 Knowledge agent
Intelligent agents should have capacity for:

Perceiving, that is, acquiring information from environment.

Knowledge Representation, that is, representing its

understanding of the world.

Reasoning, that is, inferring the implications of what it knows

and of the choices it has.

Acting, that is, choosing what it want to do and carry it out.

 Predicate logic
Predicate logic is also known as first order logic.

symbols, or alphabets are the basic constructs:

Logical Symbols are symbols that have a standard meaning,

like: AND, OR, NOT, ALL, EXISTS, IMPLIES, IFF, FALSE, =

Non-Logical Symbols are:

 Constants
• Predicates: 1-ary, 2-ary, .., n-ary.
• Functions: 0-ary, 1-ary, 2-ary, .., n-ary.
 Variables
 Predicate logic
0-ary functions are also called individual constants.

predicates return true or false, where as functions can return

any value.

One needs to be able to distinguish the identifiers used for

predicates, functions, and variables by using some appropriate
convention, for example, capitals for function and predicate
symbols and lower cases for variables.

Terms: A Term is either an individual constant (a 0-ary

function), or a variable, or an n-ary function applied to n
terms: F(t1 t2 ..tn)
 Predicate logic
An Atomic Formula is either FALSE or an n-ary predicate
applied to n terms: P(t1 t2 .. tn). In the case that "=" is a logical
symbol in the language, (t1 = t2), where t1 and t2 are terms, is
an atomic formula.

A Literal is either an atomic formula (a Positive Literal), or the

negation of an atomic formula (a Negative Literal). A Ground
Literal is a variable-free literal.

A Clause is a disjunction of literals. A Ground Clause is a

variable-free clause. A Horn Clause is a clause with at most
one positive literal. A Definite Clause is a Horn Clause with
exactly one positive Literal.
 WFF: Well Formed Formula
A Formula is either:
• an atomic formula, or

• a Negation, i.e. the NOT of a formula, or

• a Conjunctive Formula, i.e. the AND of formulae, or

• a Disjunctive Formula, i.e. the OR of formulae, or

• an Implication, that is a formula of the form (formula1

IMPLIES formula2), or
 WFF: Well Formed Formula
• an Equivalence, that is a formula of the form (formula1 IFF
formula2), or

• a Universally Quantified Formula, that is a formula of the form

(ALL variable formula). We say that occurrences of variable are
bound in formula [we should be more precise]. Or

• a Existentially Quantified Formula, that is a formula of the

form (EXISTS variable formula). We say that occurrences of
variable are bound in formula [we should be more precise].
 WFF: Well Formed Formula
An occurrence of a variable in a formula that is not bound,
is said to be free.

A formula where all occurrences of variables are bound is

called a closed formula.

one where all variables are free is called an open formula.

A formula that is the disjunction of clauses is said to be in

Clausal Form.
Inference rule & theorem proving
Inference rule & theorem proving
Inference rule & theorem proving
Inference rule & theorem proving
Inference rule & theorem proving
Inference rule & theorem proving
Inference rule & theorem proving
Inference rule & theorem proving
Inference rule & theorem proving
 Forward Chaining
Forward chaining is a form of reasoning which start with
atomic sentences in the knowledge base and applies
inference rules (Modus Ponens) in the forward direction to
extract more data until a goal is reached.

The Forward-chaining algorithm starts from known facts,

triggers all rules whose premises are satisfied, and add
their conclusion to the known facts. This process repeats
until the problem is solved.
 Forward Chaining: Example
"As per the law, it is a crime for an American to sell
weapons to hostile nations. Country A, an enemy of
America, has some missiles, and all the missiles were sold
to it by Robert, who is an American citizen.“

Prove that "Robert is criminal.“

To solve the above problem, first, we will convert all the

above facts into first-order definite clauses, and then we
will use a forward-chaining algorithm to reach the goal.
 Forward Chaining: Example
Facts Conversion into FOL:
It is a crime for an American to sell weapons to hostile
nations. (Let's say p, q, and r are variables)

American (p) ∧ weapon(q) ∧ sells (p, q, r) ∧ hostile(r) →

Criminal(p) ...(1)

Country A has some missiles. ?p Owns(A, p) ∧ Missile(p). It

can be written in two definite clauses by using Existential
Instantiation, introducing new Constant T1.

Owns(A, T1) ......(2)

Missile(T1) .......(3)
 Forward Chaining: Example
Facts Conversion into FOL:
All of the missiles were sold to country A by Robert.
?p Missiles(p) ∧ Owns (A, p) → Sells (Robert, p,A) ......(4)

Missiles are weapons.

Missile(p) → Weapons (p) .......(5)

Enemy of America is known as hostile.

Enemy(p, America) →Hos le(p) ........(6)

Country A is an enemy of America.

Enemy (A, America) .........(7)

Robert is American
American(Robert). ..........(8)
 Forward Chaining: Example
Step-1:
In the first step we will start with the known facts and will
choose the sentences which do not have implications, such
as: American(Robert), Enemy(A, America), Owns(A, T1),
and Missile(T1).

All these facts will be represented as below:

 Forward Chaining: Example
Step-2:
Rule-(6) is satisfied with the substitution(p/A), so Hostile(A)
is added and which infers from Rule-(7).
 Forward Chaining: Example
Step-3:
At step-3, as we can check Rule-(1) is satisfied with the
substitution {p/Robert, q/T1, r/A}.

so we can add
Criminal(Robert)
which infers all
the available facts.
And hence we
reached our
goal statement.
 Backward Chaining
A backward chaining algorithm is a form of reasoning,
which starts with the goal and works backward, chaining
through rules to find known facts that support the goal.

Example:
In backward-chaining, we will use the same above example,
and will rewrite all the rules:

American (p) ∧ weapon(q) ∧ sells (p, q, r) ∧ hos le(r) →

Criminal(p) ...(1)

Owns(A, T1) ........(2)

 Backward Chaining: Example
Missile(T1)

?p Missiles(p) ∧ Owns (A, p) → Sells (Robert, p, A) ….(4)

Missile(p) → Weapons (p) .......(5)

Enemy(p, America) →Hos le(p) ........(6)

Enemy (A, America) .........(7)

American(Robert). ..........(8)
 Backward Chaining: Example
In Backward chaining, we will start with our goal predicate,
which is Criminal(Robert), and then infer further rules.

Step-1:
At the first step, we will take the goal fact. And from the
goal fact, we will infer other facts, and at last, we will prove
those facts true.

So our goal fact is "Robert is Criminal," so following is the

predicate of it.
 Backward Chaining: Example
Step-2:
We will infer other facts form goal fact which satisfies the
rules. So as we can see in Rule-1, the goal predicate
Criminal (Robert) is present with substitution {Robert/P}.

So we will
add all the
conjunctive
facts below
the first level
and will
replace p with Robert.
 Backward Chaining: Example
Step-3: We will extract further fact Missile(q) which infer
from Weapon(q), as it satisfies Rule-(5).

Weapon (q) is
also true with
the substitution
of a constant T1
at q.
 Backward Chaining: Example
Step-4: we can infer facts Missile(T1) and Owns(A, T1) form
Sells(Robert, T1, r)
which satisfies the
Rule- 4, with the
substitution of A
in place of r.

So these two
statements are
proved here.
 Backward Chaining: Example
At step-5, we can infer the fact Enemy(A,
America) from Hostile(A)
which satisfies Rule- 6.

And hence all

the statements
are proved
true using
backward
chaining.
 Forward Chaining: Example 2
Axioms:
1. If D barks and D eats bone, then D is a dog.
2. If V is cold and V is sweet, then V is ice-cream.
3. If D is a dog, then D is black.
4. If V is ice-cream, then it is Vanilla.

Derive forward chaining using the below known facts to

prove Tomy is black.
• Tomy barks.
• Tomy eats bone.
 Forward Chaining: Example 2
Solution:
• Given Tomy barks.

• From (1), it is clear:

If Tomy barks and Tomy eats bone, then Tomy is a
dog.

• From (3), it is clear:

If Tomy is a dog, then Tomy is black.

• Hence, it is proved that Tomy is black.

 Forward Chaining: Example 3
Consider the below axioms:
1. Gita loves all types of clothes.
2. Suits are clothes.
3. Jackets are clothes.
4. Anything any wear and isn’t bad is clothes.
5. Sita wears skirt and is good.
6. Renu wears anything Sita wears.

Apply backward chaining and prove that Gita loves Kurtis.

 Forward Chaining: Example 3

Convert the given axioms into FOPL as:

1. x: clothes(x)→loves(Gita, x).
2. Suits(x)→Clothes(x).
3. Jackets(x)→Clothes(x).
4. wears(x,y)Ʌ ¬bad(y)→Clothes(x)
5. wears(Sita,skirt) Ʌ ¬good(Sita)
6. wears(Sita,x)→wears(Renu,x)
 Forward Chaining: Example 3
To prove: Gita loves Kurtis.
First Order Predicate Logic: loves(Gita, Kurtis).
On applying forward chaining in the below graph:

Thus, it is proved that Gita loves Kurtis.

 Backward Chaining: Example 2
Consider the previous example 2 from forward chaining:
Axioms:
1. If D barks and D eats bone, then D is a dog.
2. If V is cold and V is sweet, then V is ice-cream.
3. If D is a dog, then D is black.
4. If V is ice-cream, then it is Vanilla.

Derive backward chaining using the given known facts to

prove Tomy is black.
• Tomy barks.
• Tomy eats bone.
 Backward Chaining: Example 2
Solution:
• On replacing D with Tomy in (3), it becomes:
If Tomy is a dog, then Tomy is black.
Thus, the goal is matched with the above axiom.

• Now, we have to prove Tomy is a dog. …(new goal)

Replace D with Tomy in (1), it will become:
If Tomy barks and Tomy eats bone, then Tomy is a
dog. …(new goal)
Again, the goal is achieved.
 Backward Chaining: Example 2
Solution:
• Now, we have to prove that Tomy barks and Tomy eats
bone. …(new goal)
As we can see, the goal is a combination of two sentences
which can be further divided as:
Tomy barks.
Tomy eats bone.

From (1), it is clear that Tomy is a dog.

Hence, Tomy is black.

Note: Statement (2) and (4) are not used in proving the given
axiom. So, it is clear that goal never matches the negated
versions of the axioms. Always Modus Ponen is used,
rather Modus Tollen.
 Backward Chaining: Example 3
Consider the below axioms:
1. x: clothes(x)→loves(Gita, x).
2. Suits(x)→Clothes(x).
3. Jackets(x)→Clothes(x).
4. wears(x,y)→Ʌ ¬bad(y)→Clothes(x)
5. wears(Sita,skirt)Ʌ ¬good(Sita)
6. wears(Sita,x)→wears(Renu,x)

To prove: Gita loves Kurtis.

FOPL: loves(Gita, Kurtis).
 Backward Chaining: Example 3
Apply backward chaining in the below graph:

It is clear from the above graph Gita wears Kurtis and does
not look bad. Hence, Gita loves Kurtis.
 Resolution
Resolution method is an inference rule which is used in
both Propositional as well as First-order Predicate Logic in
different ways.

This method is basically used for proving the satisfiability of

a sentence.

The key idea for the resolution method is to use the

knowledge base and negated goal to obtain null
clause(which indicates contradiction).

Resolution method is also called Proof by Refutation.

 Resolution: in propositional calculus
In its simplest form Resolution is the inference rule:

More in general the Resolution Inference Rule is:

Given as premises the clauses C1 and C2, where C1
contains the literal L and C2 contains the literal (NOT L),
infer the clause C, called the Resolvent of C1 and C2,
where C is the union of (C1 - {L}) and (C2 -{(NOT L)})
 Resolution: in propositional calculus
Example:
 Resolution: in first order logic
Given clauses C1 and C2, a clause C is a RESOLVENT of C1
and C2, if:
1. There is a subset C1' = {A1, .., Am} of C1 of literals of
the same sign, say positive, and a subset C2' = {B1, .., Bn}
of C2 of literals of the opposite sign, say negative,
2. There are substitutions s1 and s2 that replace variables
in C1' and C2' so as to have new variables,
3. C2'' is obtained from C2 removing the negative signs
from B1 .. Bn
4. There is an Most General Unifier s for the union of
C1'.s1 and C2''.s2
 Resolution: in first order logic

If C1' and C2' are singletons (i.e. contain just one literal), the
rule is called Binary Resolution.
 Resolution: in first order logic

Notice that this application of Resolution has eliminated

more than one literal from C2, i.e. it is not a binary
resolution.
 Resolution
Resolution yields a complete inference algorithm when
coupled with any complete search algorithm.

Resolution makes use of the inference rules.

Resolution performs deductive inference.

Resolution uses proof by contradiction.

One can perform Resolution from a Knowledge Base.

 Resolution: Principle

li and mj are complementary literals.

Resolution takes two clauses and produces a new clause

containing all the literals of the two original clauses except
the two complementary literals.
Resolution: Algorithm
 Resolution: Steps
• Convert the given statements in Predicate/Propositional
Logic.

• Convert these statements into Conjunctive Normal Form.

• Negate the Conclusion (Proof by Contradiction).

• Resolve using a Resolution Tree (Unification).

 Resolution: Example 1
Now let us see an example which uses resolution.

Problem Statement:
1. Ravi likes all kind of food.
2. Apples and chicken are food
3. Anything anyone eats and is not killed is food
4. Ajay eats peanuts and is still alive
5. Rita eats everything that Ajay eats

Prove by resolution that Ravi likes peanuts using resolution.

Resolution: Example 1
 Resolution: Example 1
Step 2: Convert into CNF
i. ~food(x) v likes (Ravi, x)
ii. Food (apple)
iii. Food (chicken)
iv. ~ eats (a, b) v killed (a) v food (b)
v. Eats (Ajay, Peanuts)
vi. Alive (Ajay)
vii. ~eats (Ajay, c) V eats (Rita, c)
viii. ~alive (d) v ~ killed (d)
ix. Killed (e) v alive (e)
Conclusion: likes (Ravi, Peanuts)

Step 3: Negate the conclusion

~ likes (Ravi, Peanuts)
 Resolution: Example 1
Step 4: Resolve using a resolution tree
 Resolution: Example 1
Hence we see that the negation of the conclusion has been
proved as a complete contradiction with the given set of
facts.

Hence the negation is completely invalid or false or the

assertion is completely valid or true.

Hence Proved
 Resolution: Example 2
Consider the following Knowledge Base:
1. The humidity is high or the sky is cloudy.
2. If the sky is cloudy, then it will rain.
3. If the humidity is high, then it is hot.
4. It is not hot.

Goal: It will rain.

Apply resolution method to prove that the goal is
derivable from the given knowledge base.
 Resolution: Example 2
Solution:
Let’s construct propositions of the given sentences one
by one:

1) Let, P: Humidity is high.

Q: Sky is cloudy.
It will be represented as P V Q.

2) Q: Sky is cloudy. …from(1)

Let, R: It will rain.
It will be represented as bQ → R.
 Resolution: Example 2
3) P: Humidity is high. …from(1)
Let, S: It is hot.
It will be represented as P → S.

4) ¬S: It is not hot.

Applying resolution method:

In (2), Q → R will be converted as (¬Q V R)
In (3), P → S will be converted as (¬P V S)
Negation of Goal (¬R): It will not rain.
Finally, apply the rule as shown in the following:
 Resolution: Example 2

After applying Proof by

Refutation (Contradiction)
on the goal, the problem
is solved, and it has terminated
with a Null clause ( Ø ).

Hence, the goal is achieved. Thus, It is not raining.

 Resolution: Example 3
Consider the following knowledge base:
1. Gita likes all kinds of food.
2. Mango and chapati are food.
3. Gita eats almond and is still alive.
4. Anything eaten by anyone and is still alive is
food.

Goal: Gita likes almond.

Apply resolution method to prove that the goal is
derivable from the given knowledge base.
 Resolution: Example 3
Solution:
Convert the given sentences into FOPL as:
Let, x be the light sleeper.
1. ∀ ∀x: food(x) → likes(Gita,x)
2. food(Mango),food(chapati)
3. ∀x∀y:
∀ ∀ eats(x,y) Ʌ ¬ killed(x → food(y)
4. eats(Gita, almonds) Ʌ alive(Gita)
5. ∀x: ¬killed(x) → alive(x)
6. ∀x: alive(x) → ¬killed(x)
 Resolution: Example 3
Goal: likes(Gita, almond)
Negated goal: ¬likes(Gita, almond)

Now, rewrite in CNF form:

1. ¬food(x) V likes(Gita, x)
2. food(Mango),food(chapati)
3. ¬eats(x,y) V killed(x) V food(y)
4. eats(Gita, almonds), alive(Gita)
5. killed(x) V alive(x)
6. ¬alive(x) V ¬killed(x)
 Resolution: Example 3
Finally, construct the resolution graph:

Hence, we have
achieved the given
goal with the help
of Proof by Contradiction.

Thus, it is proved that Gita likes almond.

 Propositional Knowledge
Propositional Knowledge is information or understanding
that can be represented in natural language or a more
formal language such as mathematics and propositional
logic.

It is often contrasted with knowledge that is difficult to

encode in a language.

Examples: France is a country.

x + y > 20
The sun is larger than the earth.
 Rule Based Systems
Instead of representing knowledge in a relatively
declarative, static way (as a bunch of things that are true),
rule-based system represent knowledge in terms of a bunch
of rules that tell you what you should do or what you could
conclude in different situations.

A rule-based system consists of a bunch of IF-THEN rules, a

bunch of facts, and some interpreter controlling the
application of the rules, given the facts.

Hence, theses are also sometimes referred to as production

systems.
 Rule Based Systems
There are two broad kinds of rule system: forward chaining
systems, and backward chaining systems.

In a forward chaining system you start with the initial facts,

and keep using the rules to draw new conclusions (or take
certain actions) given those facts.

In a backward chaining system you start with some

hypothesis (or goal) you are trying to prove, and keep
looking for rules that would allow you to conclude that
hypothesis, perhaps setting new sub goals to prove as you
go.
 Forward reasoning:
Conflict resolution
A number of conflict resolution strategies are typically used
to decide which rule to fire. These include:

• Don't fire a rule twice on the same data.

• Fire rules on more recent working memory elements

before older ones. This allows the system to follow
through a single chain of reasoning, rather than keeping
on drawing new conclusions from old data.
 Forward reasoning:
Conflict resolution
• Fire rules with more specific preconditions before ones
with more general preconditions. This allows us to deal
with non-standard cases.

If for example:
we have a rule ``IF (bird X) THEN ADD (flies X)'' and another
rule ``IF (bird X) AND (penguin X) THEN ADD (swims X)'' and
a penguin called tweety

then we would fire the second rule first and start to draw
conclusions from the fact that tweety swims.
 Forward reasoning: properties
• It is a down-up approach, as it moves from bottom to top.

• It is a process of making a conclusion based on known

facts or data, by starting from the initial state and reaches
the goal state.

• This approach is also called as data-driven as we reach to

the goal using available data.

• Forward reasoning approach is commonly used in the

expert system, such as CLIPS, business, and production
rule systems.
 Backward reasoning:
Use of backtracking
In backward reasoning, a proof of a theorem is constructed
by trying to obtain a set of axioms from the theorem by
backward application of inference rules.

In other words, this approach starts with the desired

conclusion and works backward to find supporting facts.
Therefore, it is also known as Goal-Driven Approach.

Backward reasoning can be automated if, for each instance

of a rule, the premises are uniquely determined by the
conclusion.
 Backward reasoning: properties
• It is known as a top-down approach.

• Backward reasoning is based on modus ponens inference

rule.

• In backward reasoning, the goal is broken into sub-goal or

sub-goals to prove the facts true.

• It is called a goal-driven approach, as a list of goals

decides which rules are selected and used.
 Backward reasoning: properties
• Backward reasoning algorithm is used in game theory,
automated theorem proving tools, inference engines,
proof assistants, and various AI applications.

• The backward reasoning method mostly used a depth-

first search strategy for proof.
 Structured KR: Semantic Nets
A semantic network is often used as a form of knowledge
representation.

It is a directed graph consisting of vertices which represent

concepts and edges which represent semantic relations
between the concepts.

The following semantic relations are commonly represented

in a semantic net:
Meronymy (A is part of B)
Holonymy (B has A as a part of itself)
 Semantic Nets
The following semantic relations are commonly represented
in a semantic net (continued):

Hyponymy (or troponymy) (A is subordinate of B; A is kind

of B)
Hypernymy (A is superordinate of B)
Synonymy (A denotes the same as B)
Antonymy (A denotes the opposite of B)
 Semantic Nets: Example
Example:
The physical attributes of a person can be represented
as in the following figure using a semantic net.
 Semantic Nets: Example
These values can also be represented in logic as:
isa(person, mammal), instance(MikeHall, person)
team(Mike-Hall, Cardiff)

conventional predicates such as lecturer(dave) can be

written as instance (dave, lecturer)

isa and instance represent inheritance and are popular

in many knowledge representation schemes.
 Semantic Nets: Example
But we have a problem: How we can have
more than 2 place predicates in semantic nets?
E.g. score(Cardiff, Llanelli, 23-6)

Solution:
• Create new nodes to represent new objects either
contained or alluded to in the knowledge, game and
fixture in the current example.
• Relate information to nodes and fill up slots.
 Semantic Nets: Example

As a more complex example consider the sentence:

John gave Mary the book. Here we have several aspects
of an event.
Semantic Nets: Example
 Semantic Net - Slots
A slot is a relation that maps from its domain of classes
to its range of values.

A relation is a set of ordered pairs so one relation is a

subset of another.

Since slot is a set the set of all slots can be represent by

a metaclass called Slot.
 Semantic Net – Slots Example
Example 1: Coach
instance: SLOT
domain: Rugby-Team
range: Person
range-constraint: (experience x.manager)
default:
single-valued: TRUE

Example 2: Colour
instance: SLOT
domain: Physical-Object
range: Colour-Set
single-valued: FALSE
 Semantic Net – Slots Example
Example3 : Team-Colours
instance: SLOT
isa: Colour
domain: team-player
range: Colour-Set
range-constraint: not Pink
single-valued: FALSE

Example 4: Position
instance: SLOT
domain: Rugby-Player
range: { Back, Forward, Reserve }
to-compute: x.position
single-valued: TRUE
 Semantic Net - Inheritance
Inheritance is one of the main kind of reasoning done
in semantic nets.

The ISA (is a) relation is often used to link a class and its
super- class.

Some links (e.g. haspart) are inherited along ISA paths.

The semantics of a semantic net can be relatively

informal or very formal (Often defined at the
implementation level).
 Semantic Net – Inheritance
Example:
 Semantic Net - Frames
Frames are descriptions of conceptual individuals.

Frames can exist for ``real'' objects such as ``The Watergate

Hotel'', sets of objects such as ``Hotels'', or more ``abstract''
objects such as ``Cola-Wars'' or ``Watergate''.

Frames are essentially defined by their relationships with

other frames.

Relationships between frames are represented using slots.

If a frame f is in a relationship r to a frame g, then we put
the value g in the r slot of f.
 Semantic Net - Frames
Facets are features of frames which enable us to put
constraints on the frames. Example: IF-NEEDED facts are
called when data of any particular slot is needed.

A frame may consist of any number of slots, and a slot

may include any number of facets and facets may have
any number of values.

A frame is also known as slot-filter knowledge

representation in artificial intelligence.
 Semantic Net - Frames
Let's take an example of a frame for a book:
 Semantic Net - Frames
Let's suppose we are taking an entity, Peter. Peter is an engineer
as a profession, and his age is 25, he lives in city London, and the
country is England. So following is the frame representation for
this:
 Semantic Net - Frames
A single frame is not much useful.

Frames system consist of a collection of frames which

are connected.

In the frame, knowledge about an object or event can

be stored together in the knowledge base.

The frame is a type of technology which is widely used

in various applications including Natural language
processing and machine visions.
Conceptual Dependency formalism
Conceptual Dependency formalism
Conceptual Dependency formalism
Conceptual Dependency formalism
Conceptual Dependency formalism
Conceptual Dependency formalism
Conceptual Dependency formalism
Conceptual Dependency formalism
Conceptual Dependency formalism
 Conceptual Dependency formalism
Example: The man took a book.

Example: I gave the man a book.

Other knowledge representations

Inheritable Knowledge

Inferential Knowledge

Procedural knowledge
 Inheritable Knowledge
Relational knowledge is made up of objects consisting
of
• Attributes
• Corresponding associated values

We extend the base more by allowing inference

mechanisms:
Property inheritance:
• Elements inherit values from being members of a
class.
• Data must be organised into a hierarchy of
classes.
Inheritable Knowledge
 Inheritable Knowledge
Boxed nodes -- objects and values of attributes of
objects.

Values can be objects with attributes and so on.

Arrows -- point from object to its value.

This structure is known as a slot and filler structure,

semantic network or a collection of frames.
 Inferential Knowledge
Represent knowledge as formal logic:

Advantages:
• A set of strict rules.
o Can be used to derive more facts.
o Truths of new statements can be verified.
o Guaranteed correctness.
• Many inference procedures available to in implement
standard rules of logic.
• Popular in AI systems. e.g Automated theorem
proving.
 Procedural knowledge
Knowledge encoded in some procedures.

Small programs that know how to do specific things,

how to proceed.

Ex: A parser in a natural language understander has the

knowledge that a noun phrase may contain articles,
adjectives and nouns.

It is represented by calls to routines that know how to

process articles, adjectives and nouns.
 Procedural knowledge
Advantages:
• Heuristic or domain specific knowledge can be
represented.

• Extended logical inferences, such as default

reasoning facilitated.

• Side effects of actions may be modelled. Some rules

may become false in time. Keeping track of this in
large systems may be tricky.