![](bg8.png)
was strongly fostered by the tool ProKEt. Another
important general insight was, that the evaluation re-
sults not only depend on the particular UI/interaction
realization, but likewise also on the KB quality and
the quality of the test cases/descriptions—at least in
similarly expertise domains and consequential com-
plex test case descriptions.
5 CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we proposed Clarification KBS as a
novel KBS paradigm. Clarification KBS not only
mashup consultation and justification UI/interaction
within a single UI; they particularly possess the poten-
tial to foster more active user participation by letting
them bring in their own competency and further of-
fer a high explicability—therewith providing domain-
and KBS related skill-building ability. We first intro-
duced the basic concept of clarification KBS. We fur-
ther proposed some interesting, suitable UI represen-
tations: Hierarchical Clarifier, Answer Form Add-On,
Daily, and Interview style. Also, we discussed the re-
sults of evolving and evaluating an ITree KBS UI—a
tailored instantiation of Hierarchical Clarifier—in the
legal domain.
The overall results showed that ITree in particu-
lar and thus clarification KBS in general can stand
up to the assumptions regarding the assumed bene-
fits consultation/clarification KBS mashups; yet, also
the insight manifested that clarification KBS are not
well applicable for all diverse user types likewise—
rather, they seem particularly useful for users with at
least a little domain-related and/or technical experi-
ence; this assumption will be subject to future work.
Further practical work regards the implementation of
a more general clarification KBS for the medical do-
main. The currently envisioned medical clarifier re-
quires the flexible integration of diverse further ques-
tion types—e.g., numerical, date, or free-text ques-
tions. Consequently, also the propagation algorithm
of ITree will require some reconsideration and gener-
alization.
Also, the thorough implementation and evaluation
of the other proposed clarification UI types is subject
to future work. Regarding the Answer Form Add-On
style, this particularly also concerns the static base
justification types, two of which were presented in
this work; there, we are currently realizing some ex-
perimental solutions with the tool ProKEt. Finally,
also the envisioning and realization of further novel
clarification KBS UI styles offers ample room for fu-
ture work.
REFERENCES
Arnold, V., Clark, N., Collier, P. A., Leech, S. A., and Sut-
ton, S. G. (2006). The differential use and effect of
knowledgebased system explanations in novice and
expert judgment decisions. MIS Quarterly, 30(1):79–
97.
Baumeister, J. and Freiberg, M. (2010). Knowledge visual-
ization for evaluation tasks. Knowledge and Informa-
tion Systems, 29(2):349–378.
Castellanos, V., Albiter, A., Hern
´
andez, P., and Bar-
rera, G. (2011). Failure analysis expert system
for onshore pipelines. part-ii: End-user interface
and algorithm. Expert Systems with Applications,
38(9):11091–11104.
Chen, Y., Hsu, C.-Y., Liu, L., and Yang, S. (2012). Con-
structing a nutrition diagnosis expert system. Expert
Systems with Applications, 39(2):2132–2156.
Freiberg, M. and Puppe, F. (2012). iTree: Skill-building
User-centered Clarification Consultation Interfaces.
In Proceedings of the International Conference on
Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development
(KEOD 2012). SciTePress Digital Library.
Freiberg, M., Striffler, A., and Puppe, F. (2012). Extensible
prototyping for pragmatic engineering of knowledge-
based systems. Expert Systems with Applications,
39(11):10177–10190.
Nielsen, J. (1994). Heuristic Evaluation. In Nielsen, J. and
Mack, R. L., editors, Usability Inspection Methods,
pages 25–62. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Pinheiro, V., Furtado, V., Silva, P. P. D., and Mcguinness,
D. L. (2006). Webexplain: A upml extension to sup-
port the development of explanations on the web for
knowledge-based systems. In Proceedings of the Soft-
ware Engineering and Knowledge Engineering Con-
ference, San Francisco.
Puppe, F. (1993). Systematic Introduction to Expert Sys-
tems. Springer-Verlag. ISBN: 3-540-56255-9.
Russel, S. J. and Norvig, P. (2010). Artificial Intelligence:
A Modern Approach. Pearson. ISBN 13: 978-
0136042594.
Ting, S., Kwok, S., Tsang, A. H., and Lee, W. (2011). A
hybrid knowledge-based approach to supporting the
medical prescription for general practitioners: Real
case in a hong kong medical center. Knowledge-Based
Systems, 24(3):444–456.
Wharton, C., Rieman, J., Lewis, C., and Polson, P. (1994).
Usability inspection methods. chapter The Cognitive
Walkthrough Method: A Practitioner’s Guide, pages
105–140. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY,
USA.
Zeng, Y., Cai, Y., Jia, P., and Jee, H. (2012). Development
of a web-based decision support system for support-
ing integrated water resources management in daegu
city, south korea. Expert Systems with Applications,
39(11):10091–10102.
ClarificationKBSasConsultation-JustificationMashUps-ProposingaNovelParadigmforAll-in-OneKnowledge-based
Systems
175