An overview of KRL, a Knowledge Representation Language

By D. Bobrow, Terry Winograd. 1976

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. M. Prakash
2. M. Shepherd
3. John R. Wilson
4. James Pustejovsky
5. Wei Sun
6. D. Lenat
7. William C. Regli
8. M. Atwood

Citations in the corpus

• Action phases and mind-sets (1990, background): “As Norman and Bobrow (1979) point our, quick consrruction of specific descriptions at the time of”
• A Survey of Design Rationale Systems: Approaches, Representation, Capture and Retrieval (2000, background): “The artificial intelligence community has produced a rich set of techniques for formal representation of knowledge [66–70,50,71].”
• Mental Models: Theory and Application in Human Factors (1989, background): “A major reason for the suggestion of a whole set of theoretical constructs including beta structures (Moore and Newell, 1973), units (Bobrow and Winograd, 1977), schemata (e.g., Norman and Bobrow, 1976; Rumelhart, 1980), frames (Minsky, 1975), scripts (Schank and Abelson, 1977) and scenarios…”
• CYC: Using Common Sense Knowledge to Overcome Brittleness and Knowledge Acquisition Bottlenecks (1986, methodology): “We do not believe the analogy process needs to be much more complicated than the structure-matching process that we (Lenat, 198413) and others (Greiner, 1985; Mitchell, 1985; Bobrow and Winograd, 1977; Winston, et al., 1983) have hypothesized and described.”
• The Generative Lexicon (1991, methodology): “The first includes the methods of inheritance traditionally assumed in AI and lexical research (e.g. Roberts and Goldstein 1977; Brachman and Schmolze 1985; Bobrow and Winograd 1977); that is, a fixed network of relations, which is traversed to discover existing related and associated concepts (e.”