See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/347504395

Knowledge Representation in Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems Using

Inference Rule

Article in International Journal of Engineering Research · April 2020

CITATIONS READS

5 4,773

2 authors:

Edward Ogheneovo Promise Nlerum

University of Port Harcourt Federal University, Otuoke, Bayelsa State
17 PUBLICATIONS 128 CITATIONS 29 PUBLICATIONS 47 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Promise Nlerum on 19 December 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 11, Issue 4, April-2020
ISSN 2229-5518 1886

Knowledge Representation in Artificial

Intelligence and Expert Systems Using
Inference Rule
*Edward E. Ogheneovo, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria.
Promise A. Nlerum, Dept. of Computer Science and Informatics, Federal University, Otuoke, Nigeria.
*[email protected], [email protected]

Abstract
Knowledge representation is a very important concept in expert systems and artificial intelligence (AI) in
general. It involves the consideration of intelligent (expert) systems and how it presents knowledge. It is
best understood in term of the roles it plays based on the task at hand. A knowledge representation involves
reasoning about the world rather than taking action in it. It is a set of rules, i.e., an answer to the question
and a medium for efficient computation, that is, the computational environment in which thinking is

IJSER
accomplished. In this paper, we discussed knowledge representation using inference rule and forward
chaining. The paper demonstrates the use of inference rule in explaining forward chaining using an
admission process using some premises or antecedents to derive the conclusion. Some propositions or
atomic sentences consisting of logical operators AND and OR are also used to infer conclusions based on
some truth of additional proposition symbols.
Keywords: Artificial intelligence, expert systems, knowledge representation, inference rule,
forward chaining.

1.0 Introduction
Knowledge representation is one of the fundamental concepts in expert systems and artificial
intelligence (AI) [1] [2]. The field of knowledge representation involves considering intelligent
(expert) systems and how it presents knowledge. Knowledge representation can best be
understood in term of the roles it plays based on the task at hand. A knowledge representation is
most fundamentally surrogate, a substitute for the thing itself that is used to enable an entity to
determine consequences by thinking rather than acting, i.e., by reasoning about the world rather
than taking action in it. It is a set of ontological commitments [3]. That is, it provides an answer
to question bordering on the world around us. For instance, it answers question such as “In what
terms should I think about the world?” It is part of the theory of intelligent reasoning expressed
in terms of three components: 1) the representation’s fundamental conception of intelligent
reasoning, 2) the set of inferences that the representation sanctions, and 3) the set of inference
that it recommends [4]. Knowledge representation is a medium for pragmatically efficient
competition, i.e., the computational environment in which thinking is accomplished and human
expression based on the things about the world [5] [6] [7]. Pragmatically, a representation
provides for organizing information to facilitate making the recommended inferences and taking
necessary decisions based on the outcome of such inferences [8].
Knowledge representation is a medium of understanding the roles individuals play in society and
acknowledging their diversities [9]. As a field artificial intelligence (AI) and expert systems,

IJSER © 2020
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 11, Issue 4, April-2020
ISSN 2229-5518 1887

knowledge representation has several useful consequences. First, each role requires something
slightly different from a representation; which eventually leads to an interesting and different set
of properties that we want a representation to have. Secondly, we believe that roles provide a
framework that is useful for characterizing a wide variety of representations [10] [11]. Basically,
the fundamental aspect of a representation can be captured by understanding how it views each
of the roles and this will help reveal essential similarities and differences.
Knowledge representation is used to formalize and organize knowledge. One of the most
commonly used representation is the production rule, or simply rule, which contains the
knowledge base [12] [13] [14]. However, the term knowledge-base is a collection of rules or other
information structures derived from the human expert. These rules consist of a condition or
premise followed by an action or conclusion. Thus a rule consists of an IF – THEN parts. The IF
part is called the condition or the antecedent and the THEN part is the action or consequence. The
IF part lists a set of conditions in some logical combinations. The piece of knowledge represented
by the production rule is relevant and must be in line with the reasoning being developed. If the
IF part of the rule is satisfied; consequently, the THEN part can be concluded, or its problem-
solving action is then taken. Expert systems whose knowledge is represented in rule form is called
rule-based systems. Thus the problem–solving model, or paradigm, organizes and controls the
steps taken to solve the problem [15] [16].

IJSER
One common but powerful paradigm involves chaining of IF – THEN rules to form a line of
reasoning. If the chaining starts from a set of conditions and move towards some conclusion, the
method is called forward chaining. On the other hand, if the conclusion is known but the path to
that conclusion is unknown, then reasoning backwards is used. This process is called backward
chaining. These problem–solving methods are built into program modules engines or inference
procedures or functions that manipulate and use knowledge in the knowledge-base to form a line
of reasoning [17] [18]. The knowledge-base an expert use is what he learned at school, from
colleagues, and from years of experience through practice. Therefore, we can infer that the more
experience an expert has, the larger his store of knowledge. Knowledge allows him to interpret
the information in his database for diagnosis, design, and analysis. Knowledge is almost always
incomplete and uncertain. Thus a rule may have associated fact(s) with a confidence factor or a
weight. The set of methods for using uncertain knowledge in combination with uncertain data in
reasoning is called reasoning with uncertainty [19] [20] This paper discusses the knowledge
representation using inference rule which particular reference to forward chaining.
2.0 Rule-Based Expert Systems
In humans and artificial intelligence (AI) problem-solving it is important to know how knowledge
is represented in order to solving a problem knowledge representation deals with the question of
how human knowledge can be encoded into a for that can be handled by computer algorithms and
heuristics. Knowledge representations [21] are developed using different languages to ensure
completeness, consistency, expressive and extensible for humans to comprehend and for
computers to be able to solve such problems based on the symbols and syntax of the language.
Usually, knowledge representations are encoded either by using declarative or procedural
programming principles or both. Also, in most cases, knowledge representation is a mixture of
explicit and implicit knowledge available to users or computers via inference process and
formalisms such as symbols, frames, semantic networks, conceptual graphs, inference rules and
sub-symbolic patterns [22]. However, in this paper, we only applied inference rules.

IJSER © 2020
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 11, Issue 4, April-2020
ISSN 2229-5518 1888

In early 1970s, Newell and Simon from Carnegie–Mellon University proposed a production
system model, the foundation of the modern rule–based expert systems. The production model is
based on the idea that humans solve problems by applying their knowledge (expressed as
production rules) to a given problem represented by problem–specific information. The
production rules are stored in the long–term memory and the problem–specific information or
facts in the short–term memory. The basic structure of an expert system is shown in figure 1 It
contains the following components or modules: knowledge base, database, the inference engine,
explanation facilities, user interface and user. Knowledge base: The knowledge base (KB)
contains the domain knowledge useful for problem solving. In rule–based expert system, the
knowledge is represented as a set of rules. Each rule specifies a relation, recommendation,
directive, strategy or heuristic and has the IF (condition) THEN (action) structure. The IF part is
the consequent. Whenever the condition part of a rule is satisfied, the rule is said to fire and the
action part is executed. Figure 1 shows the structure of a rule–based expert system [23]. As seen
in the figure, there are several components in it. These components include: databases, inference
engines, expert systems (which consists of knowledge base, and rule), explanation facilities, and
user interface.

IJSER
External
Database External Program

Expert System
Knowledge Base Database

Rule: IF - THEN Fact

Inference Engine

Explanation Facilities

User Interface Developer Interface

User Knowledge Engineer

Expert

Fig. 1: Structure of a rule–based expert system

IJSER © 2020
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 11, Issue 4, April-2020
ISSN 2229-5518 1889

Database: The database includes a set of facts used to match against the IF (condition) parts of
the rules stored in the knowledge base.
Inference Engine: This is a control mechanism for navigating through and manipulating
knowledge and deducing results in an organized manner. It applies the axiomatic (self – evident)
knowledge base to the task–specific data to arrive at some conclusion. Thus the inference engine
carries out the reasoning which the expert system deduce the solution. The inference engine links
the rules given in the knowledge base with the facts provided in the database.
The Explanation Facilities: The explanation facilities help the user to ask the expert system how
a particular conclusion is reached and why a specific fact is needed. An expert system must be
able to explain its reasoning and justify its advice, analysis or conclusion.
The User Interface: The user interface is the medium through which a user communicates with
the expert system. It is through the user interface that a user seeking a solution to the problem
communicates with the expert system.

2.1 Inference Engine

IJSER
An inference engine is a software that performs the inference reasoning tasks. It uses the
knowledge in the knowledge base and information provided by the user to infer new knowledge.
The inference engine is often based on the use of rules called inference rules. The inference engine
usually interacts with the knowledge base (i.e., IF - - - THEN - - - ELSE Statements), which
contains information about how to solve problems within the problem domain. This is the global
memory where the knowledge base system is records information relating to a specific problem
that it is trying to solve [24]. Much of the information comes from the user but the memory is
also used by the inference engine to record its own conclusions and to remember its chain of
reasoning. By comparing what it knows about the problem domain in general with what it knows
about the specific problem, the inference engine tries to proceed logically towards a better
solution. It does this by using a mechanism that matches information in the knowledge database
with pertinent action rules in the knowledge base, and if several rules apply, it selects the most
appropriate one. It then implements the selected action by using chaining, either as forward
chaining or backward chaining to arrive at a conclusion [25].
Rule–based systems are used as a means of storing and manipulating knowledge to interpret
information in a useful way [26]. The term is often used in systems involving human related rule
sets. Rule – based system is often used in artificial intelligence and research problems. In rule –
based systems, much of the knowledge is represented as rules, i.e., as conditional sentences
relating statements of facts with one another. Rule based systems are used to represent knowledge
because human mental process is internal and therefore too complex to be represented as an
algorithm. This is why most expert systems express their knowledge in the form of rules for
problem solving. In rule – based expert systems, the knowledge representation method is a
systematic way of “encoding” what an expert knows about some domain. Although, there are
numerous knowledge representation methods, the logic – based ones are essential to the theory
and practice of rule–based systems and expert systems in general. In encoding rule–based
systems, propositional logic can serve as a practically useful language as it makes analysis and
design of these systems relatively simple. The most basic logical form of proposition rules is: P1

IJSER © 2020
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 11, Issue 4, April-2020
ISSN 2229-5518 1890

 P2  . . .  Pn  h. This form of a rule is logically equivalent to a Horn clause, provided that all
the literals are positive. A more complex rule may contain conclusion part composed of several
propositions [27].

2.2 The IF – THEN Structure

The IF – THEN structure of knowledge representation in expert system is used to relate given
information or facts in the IF part to some action in the THEN part. The IF part is the conditional
part while the THEN part is action part that describes how a problem can be solved. That is, rule–
based knowledge representation consists of the IF part (i.e., antecedent – premise or condition)
and the THEN part (i.e., consequent – conclusion or action) . A rule can have multiple antecedents
joined by AND (conjunction) or OR (disjunction). The antecedent of a rule incorporates the object
and its value are linked by an operator. For example, the IF – THEN part structure is as follows:

IF <antecedent>
THEN <consequent>

IJSER
However, for a rule with multiple antecedents joined with AND or OR or a combination of both,
we can have the following structure
IF <antecedent 1> AND
<antecedent 2> AND
⋮
<antecedent n> AND
THEN <consequent>
IF <antecedent 1>
OR <antecedent 2>
⋮
OR <antecedent n>
THEN <consequent>
However, the consequent of a rule can also have multiple clause:
IF <antecedent n>
THEN <consequent 1>
<consequent 2>
⋮
<consequent m>

IJSER © 2020
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 11, Issue 4, April-2020
ISSN 2229-5518 1891

The antecedent of a rule incorporates two parts: an object and its value. As an example, let as
consider road traffic light.

R1: IF you study hard

THEN you will pass your exams
R2: IF you fail to study hard
THEN be ready to fail your exams
These statements represented in the IF – THEN forms are called production rule or just rules. The
term ‘rule’ in artificial intelligence and expert systems is defined as an IF – THEN structure that
relates given information or facts in the IF part to some action in the THEN part. What a rule does
in knowledge representation is to provide some description of how to solve a problem. Relatively,
rules are easy to create and use.

3.0 Methodology

IJSER
As an example, consider the candidate seeking for admission to do a master’s programme in a
university.
Rule 1: IF (Bachelor’s degree certificate is available) AND
(Transcript is available) AND
(Degree is in chosen course) AND
(CGPA < 3.0)
THEN (Deny admission)

Rule 2: IF (Bachelor’s degree certificate is available) AND

(Transcript is available) AND
(Degree is in another course) AND
(CGPA >= 3.0)
THEN (Deny admission)

Rule 3: IF (Bachelor’s degree certificate is available) AND

(Transcript not available) AND
(Degree is in another course) AND
THEN (Deny admission)

Rule 4: IF (Bachelor’s degree certificate is available) AND

(Transcript is available) AND
(Degree is in another course) AND
(PGD is available)
(CGPA < 4.0)
THEN (Deny admission)

Rule 5: IF (Bachelor’s degree certificate is available) AND

IJSER © 2020
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 11, Issue 4, April-2020
ISSN 2229-5518 1892

(Transcript is available) AND

(CGPA >= 3.0) AND
THEN (Recommend admission)

Rule 6: IF (Bachelor’s degree certificate is available) AND

(Transcript is available) AND
(Degree is in another course) AND
(PGD is available)
(CGPA >= 4.0)
THEN (Recommend admission)
Based on these rules, a candidate seeking for admission for a master’s programme will be
recommended for admission if he met the criteria or denied admission if otherwise.

Fig. 2:

4.0 Representing Knowledge Using Forward Chaining

The solution to some problems naturally starts rom the collection of information. In this process,

IJSER
reason is applied tis information to obtain logical conclusions. To apply reason to gather the
information needed to solve a problem, logical rule is applied. This logical rule is called chaining.
Chaining is the process of obtaining the output of one rule by activating another rule. Chaining
technique is used to break the task (problem) into small procedures and then inform each
procedure within the sequence by itself. Two types of chaining exist. They are: forward chaining
and backward chaining. In forward chaining, first the rules for matching facts are tested, and then
the action is executed. In the next stage, the working memory is updated with new facts and the
matching process starts all over. This process continues until no more rules are left, or until the
goal is reached. Forward chaining is a data-driven reasoning approach that starts from the known
facts and tries to match the rules with these facts. Sometimes, there is a possibility that all the
rules match the information (condition). Forward chaining is useful when a lot of information is
available and can be implemented if there are infinite number of potential solutions like
configuration problems and planning. Forward chaining uses bottom-up computational approach
to problem solving. It starts with a set of known facts and applies rules to generate new facts
whose premises match the known facts and continue this process until it reaches a predetermined
goal or until no further facts can be derived whose premises match the known facts. It checks the
facts against the query or predeterm9ned goal and indicates that the inference moves forward
from the facts towards the goal [28].

Backward chaining is goal-driven reasoning method. It starts from the goal (i.e., from the end),
which is a hypothetical solution and the inference engine tries to find the matching evidence.
When it is found, the condition becomes sub-goal, and then rules are searched to prove these sub-
goals. It simply matches the right-hand-side (RHS) of the goal. This process continues until all
the sub-goals are proved, and it backtracks to the previous step where a rule was chosen. If there
is no rule to be established in an individua sub-goal, another rule is chosen. Backward chaining
is good for situations where there are not so much facts and the information (facts) should be
generated by the user. Backward chaining reasoning is also effective for application in the
diagnostic tasks. Backward chaining is similar to hypothesis testing in human problem-solving.

IJSER © 2020
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 11, Issue 4, April-2020
ISSN 2229-5518 1893

This type of reasoning process is modelled in expert systems using a goal-driven search. It is a
top-down computational approach to problem solving and it starts with a goal or hypothesis. It
attempts matching the variables that lead to valid facts in the data and indicates that the inference
moves backward from the intended goal to determine facts that would satisfy that goal.

This paper discusses knowledge representation using inference rue and forward chaining. In this
form of chaining, the inference engine starts with facts and matches them to the conditions of a
rule. If the condition is satisfied, the rule’s conclusions are used to prove additional or further
rules. This process continues until sufficient rules and facts are established to make a conclusion.
Therefore, forward chaining is an expert system strategy to answer the question “what happens
next?” It follows the chain of conditions and derivations and finally deduces the outcome. It
considers all the facts and rules, and sort them before drawing a conclusion on the solution [29].
Figure 3 shows the forward chaining technique. Forward chaining technique is used to determine
the conclusion and result of the rules in figure 2.

Rule 1
AND Decision 1

IJSER
Rule 2 AND Decision 4 Denial Admission

Rule 3
AND Decision 2
Decision 5 Recommend
OR
Admission
Rule 4

Rule 5
AND Decision 3 Decision 6 Recommend Admission

Rule 6

Fig. 3: Forward Chaining for figure 2.

In forward chaining, the basic idea is to fire any rule whose premises are satisfied in the
knowledge and continuously make its conclusion to the knowledge base until query is found.
Figure 2 is an example of forward chaining. In the figure, we have four facts: Fact 1, …, Fact 4
grouped into two. Facts 1 and 2, and Facts 3 and 4 using the AND logic operator to form decision
1 and 2 respectively. These decisions are further joined using an AND operator to arrive at
decision 4 which now form the conclusion. In forward–chaining, for example, rules are applied
by checking if their preconditions are satisfied. When a rule is executed (i.e., fired), its conclusion
is added to the current knowledge base [30] [31].
As an example, consider the propositions in figure 3 for an atomic sentence using the logical
operators AND and OR to infer some conclusions based on some premises.

IJSER © 2020
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 11, Issue 4, April-2020
ISSN 2229-5518 1894

Given
Q

PQ
LMP P
BLM
APL
M
ABL
A
B L

A B
Fig. 3: Proposition symbols for forward chaining

IJSER
In forward chaining, basically, we start with given proposition symbols (i.e. atomic sentence), for
example, A and B as seen above. Iteratively, we then try to infer truth of additional proposition
symbols, e.g., A  B  L, hence, we establish L as true. We continue to infer in this process until
there is no more inference that can be carried out or until we have reached to goal. Initially, taking
A and B as our agenda, and annotate horn clauses with number of remises, which in this case 2,
we infer nothing, i.e., . At this stage, the number of premises in each combination is noted. That
is:

Q Premise Agenda: A, B
Premise Conclusion
Count
Inferred: 
1
P Q 1
P

2 LM P 2
M
BL M 2
2
L
AP L 2
2
2
AB L 2
A B

IJSER © 2020
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 11, Issue 4, April-2020
ISSN 2229-5518 1895

We then start by processing agenda item A. that is, taking A and decreasing count for horn clauses
in which A is a premise, we have:

Q Premise Agenda: B
Premise Conclusion
Count
1 Inferred: A

P P Q 1

2 LM P 2
M
2 BL M 2
L
1 AP L 1
1

IJSER
A B AB L 1

Notice that the number of premise count in premise A  P and A  B have both reduced to one
(1) in each case because agenda item A has been taken and we decrease count for horn clauses in
which A is a premise. In those cases, we say, we pop A or inferred A. We then process agenda
item B again by decreasing count for horn clauses in which B is a premise which in this case are
A  B and B  L.
We then add L to the agenda and A and B are inferred. Then the table look like this.

Q
Premise Agenda: L
Premise Conclusion
1 Count
Inferred: A, B
P P Q 1

2
M LM P 2
1
L BL M 1
0
1
AP L 1
A B
AB L 0
OR GATE AND GATE

IJSER © 2020
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 11, Issue 4, April-2020
ISSN 2229-5518 1896

Further, we process agenda item L by decreasing count for horn clauses in which L appears as a
premise, which of course are L  M and B  L. B  L  M now has its premise fulfilled and we
then add M to agenda.

The new table is:

Q Premise Agenda: L
Premise Conclusion
Count
1 Inferred: A, B, L
P P Q 1

1
LM P 1
M
0 BL M 0
L

IJSER
0 AP L 1
1

A B AB L 0

At this stage, we add P to the agenda since we have inferred A, B, L, M. Agenda item P is then
processed by decreasing count for horn clauses in which P is premise. In this case, we have P 
Q and A  P, at which point P has now fulfilled premise and Q is then added to the agenda as
shown in fig. However, since L is already inferred, (It will not be inferred the second time) we
process agenda item Q and finally q is inferred.

Q Premise Agenda: M
Premise Conclusion
Count Inferred A, B, L, M
1
P Q 1
P
0
LM P 0
M
0 BL M 0
L
0 AP L 1
1

A B AB L 0

IJSER © 2020
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 11, Issue 4, April-2020
ISSN 2229-5518 1897

Q Premise Agenda: P
Premise Conclusion
Count
Inferred: A, B, L, M, P
0
P Q 0
P
0 LM P 0
M
0 BL M 0
L
0 AP L 0
0
AB L 0
A B

IJSER
Q Premise Agenda: P
Premise Conclusion
Count Inferred: A, B, L, M,
0 P, L already
P Q 0 inferred and
P
will not be
0 LM P 0 inferred the
second time
M
0 BL M 0
L
0 AP L 0
0

A B AB L 0

IJSER © 2020
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 11, Issue 4, April-2020
ISSN 2229-5518 1898

Agenda: Q
Q Premise
Premise Conclusion
Count Inferred: A, B, L, M, P, Q
0
P Q 0
P
0 LM P 0
M
0 BL M 0
L
0 AP L 0
0

A B AB L 0

IJSER
5.0 Conclusion
Knowledge representation is a very important concept in expert systems and artificial intelligence
(AI) in general. It involves considering intelligent (expert) systems and how it presents
knowledge. Knowledge representation can best be understood in term of the roles it plays based
on the task at hand. Knowledge representation is a medium for pragmatically efficient
competition, that is, the computational environment in which thinking is accomplished.
Pragmatically, a representation provides for organizing information to facilitate making the
recommended inferences. Knowledge representation is a medium of human expression, that is, a
language in which are say things about the world. In this paper, we discussed knowledge
representation using inference rule and forward chaining. The paper demonstrates the use of
inference rule in explaining forward chaining using an admission process based on some premises
or antecedents to derive the conclusion. Some propositions or atomic sentences consisting of
logical operators AND and OR are also used to infer conclusions based on some truth of additional
proposition symbols.

References
1. Stanojevic, M. and Vranes, S. (2007). Knowledge Representation with SOUL, Expert
Systems with Application, Vol. 33, pp. 122-134.
2. Davis, R., H. Shrobe, and P. Szolovits (2002). What is a Knowledge Representation? AI
Magazine, pp. 17 – 33.
3. Nevo, D., I. Benbasat, and Y. Wand (2003). Exploring Meta – Knowledge for Knowledge
Management Systems: A Delphi Study. In Proceedings of the 24th Int’l Conference on
Information Systems. (ICIS’03), Paper 37, pp. 439 – 449.

IJSER © 2020
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 11, Issue 4, April-2020
ISSN 2229-5518 1899

4. Owoided, H. H. and M. M. Qasem (2010). Developing Rule-Case-Based Shell Expert

System. In Proceedings of the Int’l Multiconference of Engineers and Computer Scentists,
Hong Kong, March 17-19, 2010.
5. Streitberg, G. S. T., P T. Bwititi, L. Angel, A. Kenneth and K. A. Sikeris (2009). Automation
and Expert Systems in a Core Clinical Chemistry Laboratory, The Association for Laboratory
Automation.
6. Islam, R. and K. Anderson (2015). A Web-Based Belief Rule-Based Support System to
Predict Flood, WAS2015, Brussels, Belgium, Dec. 11-13, 2015.
7. Baral, C. and S. Liang (2012). From Knowledge Represented in Frame – Based Languages
to Declarative Representation and Reasoning via ASP. In Proceedings of the 13th Int’l
Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 413 – 423.
8. Verhodubs, O. and J. Grundspenkis (2012). Towards the Semantic Web Expert System,
Application Computing System, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 116-123.
9. Sowa, J. E. (2001). Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical and Computational
Foundations. Computational Linguistics, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 286-294, Shapiro, S. C. (ed.)
(2001).

IJSER
10. Hogo, M. A., K. Foused and F. Mousa (2009). Web-Based Expert System for Civil Service
Regulations: RCSES. Int’l Journal of Computer and Information Security, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.
7-16.
11. Claudiu-Leonardo, S. (2013). A Study Regarding the Use of Expert Systems in Economic
Field. Procedia Economics and Finance, Vol. 6, pp. 385-391.
12. Tanwar, P., T. V. Prasad and K Datta (2012). Hybrid Technologies for Effective Knowledge
Representation and a Comparative Study. Int’l Journal of Computer Science & Engineering
Survey, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 43-57.
13. Patel, A and S. Jain (2017). Formalisms of Representing Knowledge. In Proceedings of the
6th Int’l Conference on Smart Computing and Communications (ICSCC’17), 7-8 December,
National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra, 136119, Haryana, India.
14. Sagheb-Tehrani, M. (2005). Expert Systems Development: Some Issues of Design Process.
ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 1-5.
15. Buchanan, B. (2005). A Brief History of Artificial Intelligence. AI Magazine, Vol. 26, No.
4, pp. 53-60.
16. Bahrami, M. (2008). A New Method for Knowledge Representation in Expert System’s
(XMLKR). In Proceedings of IEEE First Int’l Conference on Emerging Trends in
Engineering and Technology, pp. 326-331.
17. Jose, A. and A Prasad (2011). Design and Development of a Rule Based Expert System for
AACR: A Study o the Application o Artificial Intelligence Techniques in Library and
Information Field, VDM Verlag, Saarbrǜcken, Germany.
18. Nalepa, G. J (2016). Diversity of Rule-Based Approaches: Classical Systems and Recent
Applications, AVANT, Vol. VI, No. 2, pp.104-116.

IJSER © 2020
http://www.ijser.org
 International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 11, Issue 4, April-2020
ISSN 2229-5518 1900

19. Hu-Chen, L., Y. Jian-Xiu, L. Z. Wu and I. Guaagdong (207). Fuzzy Petri Nets for Knowledge
Representation and easoning: A Literarture Review. Emerging Applications of Artificial
Intelligence, pp. 45-56.
20. Napela, G. J., K. Khuza and K. Kaczor (2013). Proposal of an Information Engine
Architecture for Business Rules and Processes. Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing.
In Proceedings of the 12th Int’l Conference, ICAISC 2013, Zakopane, Poland, June 9-13,
2013, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol 7895, pp. 453-464.
21. Stevens, R., C. A. Gable and S. Bechhafer (2000). Ontology-Case Knowledge Representation
for bioinformatics. Briefings in Bioinformatics, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp/ 398-414.
22. Luger, G. (2009). Artificial Intelligence: Structures and Strategies for Complex Problem
Solving, 4th ed., Pearson Education.
23. Mandis, D. (2012). Artificial Intelligence in Supervised Learning. In Proceedings of the 11th
WSEAS Int’l Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 213-218.
24. Rusell, S. and P. Norwig (2009). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 3rd ed.,
Prentice-Hall.
25. Al-Ajulan, A. (2015). The Comparison between Forward and Backward Chaining. Int’l

IJSER
Journal of Machine Learning and Computing, Vol. 5, No.2, pp. 106-113.
26. Stephan, G., H. Pascal, and A Andres (2007). Knowledge Representation and Ontologies.
Semntic Web Services, Springer, Berlin, Heiddberg, pp. 51-105.
27. George, F. (2008). Artificial Intelligence: Structures and Strategies for Complex Problem
Solving. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc.
28. Baget, J. (2004). Improving the Forward Chaining Algorithm for Conceptual Graphs Rules:
Principle of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. In Proceedings of the 9th Int’l
Conference (KR2004), pp. 407-414.
29. Cabrera, M. M. and E. O. Edye (2010). Integration of Rule-Based Expert Systems and Case-
Based Reasoning in an Acute Bacterial Meningitis Clinical Decision Support System
30. Kesarwani, P. and A. K. Misra (203). Selecting Integrated Approach of Knowledge
Representation by Comparative Study of Knowledge Representation Scheme. Int’l Journal
of Scientific and Research Publications, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 3150-3153.
31. Napela, G. J., S. Bobak, A. Ligeza and K. Koczor (2011). Formalization and Modeling of
Rules Using the XTT2 Method. Int’l Journal of Artificial Intelligence Tools. World
Scientific, Vol. 20, No. 6, pp. 1107-1125.

IJSER © 2020
http://www.ijser.org

View publication stats