Talk:Knowledge-based systems

I’m making a few changes to emphasize that KBS are not just IF-THEN forward/backward-chainers, but also include other approaches to representing knowledge and other approaches to reasoning. Especially, I wanted to tie in the work in KR&R and increase the emphasis on logic and automated reasoning systems, beyond the mention of the semantic web. Additionally, blackboard systems and knowledge-based systems with meta-level reasoning illustrate knowledge-based approaches more sophisticated than IF-THEN rules. Without these changes or similar ones, the richness of approaches to knowledge representation (the knowledge base) and reasoning (the inference engine) are lost.

I removed the mention of user-interfaces since the key distinguishing features are the KB and reasoning capabilities. Of course, a user-interface is an integral part of a deployed application, but it does not distinguish a KBS as most deployed applications will have user interfaces.

Finally, I also made some minor wording changes. Veritas Aeterna (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Is Mind Map Software [1] just another term for Knowledge Based System? I think there is a double standard in this Wikipedia in which some advertisers/advertising is able to be listed and other is not. I would like someone to explain why my attempt to add a page about General Knowledge Base [2] was rejected and yet there are several pages about Mind Map Software that is just advertising.Tesseraltyme 12:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

？？ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.155.128.98 (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No, Mind Map software and Knowledge Based Systems are not the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.116.247.36 (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be two entries for this topic. This one, obviously, and the following, which offers a redirect to Expert_system: Knowledge_based_system — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip sheldrake (talk • contribs) 21:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes concerning sentence about Watson and Wolfram

@StarryGrandma: I noticed you recently undid a change where @2601:980:80:245:cc8a:1832:8655:a1c4: deleted a sentence about the Semantic Web, Watson, and Wolfram. I was originally going to do the same (undo the removal of sourced text) but when I looked at the references I don't think they support the sentence. I searched for "Semantic web" on the Watson reference page and didn't even find a match for "semantic". As for the Wolfram reference first, I do a fair amount of work in the Semantic Web and I've never heard of Wolfram. Second, there is also no find for "Semantic" on the Wolfram page used as a reference. Also, that page is just a section of the site Wolfram.com. As far as I can tell Wolfram is a commercial product so even if that reference did talk about the Semantic Web a company web page for a product is not a valid primary reference and is essentially spam for a company. I think the issue is a bit complex because while to my knowledge IBM didn't use Semantic Web technology such as RDF or OWL to build Watson, Watson is the kind of system that the Semantic Web is meant to support. Also, I did find a page on IBM's web site where they say "IBM has an implementation of RDF in DB2. Semantic technology is a key enabler to "contextual computing" and the contextual enterprise. IBM's WATSON Jeopardy! System is an example of contextual computing, and future versions of WATSON will thrive on rich context creation." https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/blogs/5things/entry/5_things_to_know_about_the_semantic_technologies?lang=en Not sure what this means, it sounds to me essentially like marketing speak with IBM making sure that companies looking for Semantic Web technology will consider Watson but not sure. My point is though I agree with the Internet user who made the deletion. Wolfram should definitely go (unless there is a better reference) and Watson is very iffy. DBPedia is a much better example of semantic web technology. I think removing that sentence was correct but don't want to start edit warring. @StarryGrandma: any revised thoughts? --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I was reading too fast and didn't read the whole section carefully. Without clear sources you are right the sentence should be removed. Thanks for checking this. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Knowledge-based systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130424071228/http://www.cs.umd.edu/~golbeck/LBSC690/SemanticWeb.html to http://www.cs.umd.edu/~golbeck/LBSC690/SemanticWeb.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)