22
A Simple Expert System
B. I. Blum
The Johns Hopkins University/Applied Physics Laboratory
Abstract
Expert systems are one field of artificial intelligence (AI)
that has received considerable recent attention. These systems
generally are written in Lisp or Prolog -- languages that are inter-
pretive, have flexible data accessing mechanisms, and use powerful
string manipulation tools. This raises two questions: what are
expert systems, and can they be implemented using MUMPS?
Some answers are presented in this paper.
Introduction to Expert Systems
Expert systems represent a field of artificial intelligence (AI)
that has met with some operational success and considerable com-
mercial interest. From a functional viewpoint, the underlying con-
cept of an expert system is that the knowledge of a relatively nar-
row domain, i.e., the expertise, is structured so that a less experi-
enced person may access this knowledge in solving problems.
That is, the expert's knowledge is recorded, and the system draws
upon this to provide expert advice.
Not every system that offers expert advice is an expert sys-
tem. In many situations the expert knowledge can be formalized as
an algorithm. In this case, the results are defined as a function of
the inputs; once the inputs have been specified, the outputs can be
produced with no further interaction. Examples are computations
such as finding a maximum or calculating a standard deviation.
Most of the early computer applications were concerned with the
formalization of this kind of computational knowledge.
With the advent of integrated circuits and large mass memory
devices, computers increasingly were used to store information.
Information retrieval and database management systems now rou-
tinely store and access information in databases of gigabit size. In
most cases, the databases are not viewed as storing knowledge.
There are exceptions. For e~ample, bibliographic systems may
contain knowledge in the form of abstracts. The information
retrieval systems can display this knowledge, but it cannot use it.
The abstract is simply a body of text with some additional terms to
guide retrieval; extraction of the knowledge contained in it
requires a human reader.
Expert systems, therefore, must do more than simply com-
pute algorithms or retrieve information. They require that (a) the
knowledge is organized so that inferences can be constructed from
it, and (b) there is a mechanism to infer expert guidance for a
given situation. Although there is no clear dividing line between
the algorithmic computations, the retrieval of information, and the
functions of an expert system, the unique character of an expert
system is that it can navigate through the knowledge base to make
inferences in many situations. Compare this with the algorithm
that can compute only after all the inputs have been entered or the
information retrieval system that only can extract information
already stored.
Figure I contains a generic diagram for an expert system.
The knowledge is stored in the Knowledge Base, and the data that
describe the current problem are maintained in the Global Data-
base. The Knowledge Base is static; it can be added to as new
knowledge is gained. The Global Database is dynamic; it is
deleted once the problem has been solved. The Inference Engine
navigates through (or searches) the Knowledge Base to infer facts
that are consistent with the state of the Global Database; these
new facts then are added to the Global Database.
The structure of the Knowledge Base, the form of the global
data, and the mechanism of the Inference Engine are all closely
interconnected. Many expert systems are designed for only a
specific class of problem; others -- called domain independent or a
shell -- may be used in many application areas. In each case, the
Inference Engine applies heuristics (i.e., rules of thumb) to guide
its processing. The heuristics normally arc defined as algorithms,
but they do not act as algorithms. The fact that a heuristic is used
implies that an exact solution is not always available. Backtrack-
ing, nondeterministic judgments, and approximations may be used.
Herb Simon, the economist, computer scientist, and Nobel
laureate, uses the word "satisfice" to mean that a satisfactory
rather than optimum solution is produced.
Another way of looking at an expert system is to consider
how it processes data. In a traditional compiled system, the com-
putational algorithm fixes all control paths and data structures
prior to execution. All possible paths of use have been predefined.
With an expert system, on the other hand, the knowledge and con-
trol flow are separate from each other. There is no standard con-
trol flow (although the heuristics may suggest one). The control is
determined dynamically by the contents of the Global Database.
Expefts U~r$
Natural I.,ll~juage User Inteda¢~ [
I,
I-I
Engine
/ \
B&~ Oatt~a.t~
Figure 1 An Expert System
 23

That is, searching of the K n o w l e d g e Base is established by what is
currently k n o w n in the Global Database and what is to be found
out, i.e., the goals.
In addition to the basic control flow mechanism, an expert
system requires:
, Tools to build and maintain the K n o w l e d g e Base.
o A m e a n s for explaining the rationale for the advice
presented.
• A n interface to facilitate user interaction.
Because most expert systems maintain the knowledge base as sym-
bolic (as opposed to n u m e r i c or coded) text, there also is a general
goal of providing natural language interfaces. At present, how-
ever, natural language processing is a separate research issue, and
most systems do little language processing beyond that associated
with the interpretation of the K n o w l e d g e Base.
A Production Rule System
As previously noted, the structure of the knowledge
representation a n d the organization of the Inference Engine are
closely linked. O n e o f the most gcncral organizations for
knowledge -- and the easiest to explain -- is the production rule.
A production rule is a logical statement containing a predicate
composed of antecedents and a set o f consequents. If the predi-
cate is true, then each c o n s e q u e n t is set true. For example, in
If P(A ~ A ~ . . . . 4 , 0
thcnC~C~ ... C,
the A ~ are a s s u m e d to be facts in the Global Database, and if P
evaluates to true, then the C~ are a d d e d as facts to the Global
Database.
This is better understood by way of example. Table l con-
tains a small a n d very simple production rule K n o w l e d g e Base

RULE 1 RULE i0
On condition [has hair] On condition [is carnivore]
Then [is mammal] [has tawny color]
[has black stripes]
RULE 2 Then [is tiger]
On condition [gives milk] GOAL
Then [is mammal]
R U L E ii
RULE 3 On condition [is ungulate]
On condition [has feathers] [has long legs]
Then [is bird] [has long neck]
[has tawny color]
RULE 4 [has dark spots]
On condition [flies] Then [is giraffe]
[lays eggs] GOAL
Then [is bird]

RULE 5 RULE 12
On condition [is mammal] On condition [is ungulate]
[eats meat] [has white color]
Then [is carnivore] [has black stripes]
Then [is zebra]
RULE 6 GOAL
On condition [is mammal]
[has pointed teeth] RULE 13
[has claws] On condition [is bird]
[has foward pointing eyes] [does not fly]
[is carnivore] [has long legs]
Then
[has long neck]
[is black and white]
RULE 7
[is mammal] Then [is ostrich]
On condition GOAL
[has hoofs]
Then [is ungulate]
RULE 14
On condition [is bird]
RULE 8
[is mammal] [does not fly]
On condition
[chews cud] [swims]
[is ungulate] [is black and white]
Then [is penguin]
[is even-toed] Then
GOAL
RULE 9
[is carnivore] RULE 15
On condition [is bird]
[has tawny color] On condition
[has dark spots] [is good flier]
[is cheetah] Then [is albatross]
Then GOAL
GOAL

Table 1 A Simple Production Rule Knowledge Base

 24

designed to identify an animal. All of the rules in this case imply initial facts: [has feathers]
the conjunction of the antecedents as the predicate. Thus. for [is good flier]
example, R U L E 8 is
Rule 9 [is carnivore] Rule 5 [is mamma]] Rule 1 [has hair]
If (this) is mammal A N D fail
(it) chews cud Rule 2 [gives milk]
then (it) is ungulate A N D ALSO fail fail fail
(it) is even-toed Rule 10 [is carnivore] Rule 5 [is mammal] Rule 1 [has hair]
fall
Both antecedents must bc true; if they are, the two consequcnts Rule 2 [gives milk]
will be added to the Global Database. fail fail fail
Rule 8 adds to our knowlcdgc, but it does not answer the Rule 1 I [is ungulate Rule 5 [is mammal] Rule 1 [has hair]
question we are interested in, namely: What is this animal? Rules fail
9 through 15 tell us the name of a specific animal. Therefore, they Rule 2 [gives milk]
are labeled as goals. Notice that we have taken a very general fail fail fail
structure -- the production rule - - and built a Knowledge Base Rule 12 [is ungulate] Rule 5 [is mammal] Rule 1 [has hair]
designed to answer certain kinds o f questions. This Knowledge fail
Base can identify an animal given some of its characteristics; it Rule 2 [gives milk]
cannot, however, tell about the characteristics of an animal given fail fail fail
its name. That is, one would expect it to be able to answer: Rule 13 [is bird I Rule 3 [has feathers]
true, [is bird] added as a fact
What is a carnivore that has a tawny color and black [does not fly]
stripes? fail
Rule 14 [is bird] true
But the rules in this example do not provide information to [does not fly]
answer: fail
Rule 15 [is bird] true
What color is a tiger? [is good flier] true
Goal: [is albatross]
because "tiger" does not appear as an anteccdcnt in any of the
rules.
There are two basic ways in which an Inference Engine Figure 2 Search Flow for a Sample Consultation
searches through this type o f Knowledge Base. The first is called
goal directed searching. Assume that we enter the following facts
into the Global Database: ever an unresolved antecedent was found, it used backward chain-
ing to try to validate the antecedents. There is another way to
manage the searching with production rules. It is called data
[has feathers] directed search. What happens with this flow is that all rules (not
[is good flier]. just goal rules) are tested to see if all the antecedents are in the
Global Database. If they are, then the consequents are added to
In a goal directed search, the Inference Engine examines each pro- the database, and the process begins again. This continues until
duction rule defined as a goal, and tests its antecedents. If an the consequent o f a goal is found to be true.
antecedent is not known to be true, then the antecedent is made a If the Inference Engine used a data directed search (or for-
subgoal, and the engine attempts to show that it is true. If it is ward chaining), then after entry of
true, then the Global Database is updated, and processing resumes
after the point it became a subgoal. If the backward chaining fails, [has feathers]
then the current rule is abandoned and the next rule is examined. [is good flier]
In the example, Rule 9 (the first of the goals) is examined the flow might be as follows. For Rules 1 and 2 the antecedents
and the first antecedent, [is carnivore], becomes a subgoal (see are not satisfied, and so no action is taken. For Rule 3 the
Figure 2). This will be true if the antecedents of Rules 5 or 6 are antecedent is true, so the consequent [is bird], is added to the Glo-
true. First we try Rule 5 and make its first antecedent, [is mam- bal Database. Because the Global Database now has been
mal], a subgoah This will be true if the antecedents of Rules 1 or changed, rules that previously failed may now succeed. Thus test-
2 are true. Trying Rule 1, we find that the fact [has hair] is not in ing begins again with Rule 1 a n d continues until Rule 15 where
the Global Database and there are no other rules that can deter- both antecedents succeed. The consequent is that this is an alba-
mine the truth o f [has hair] as a subgoal. Next we try Rule 2 and tross. Because this is a goal, the processing is complete.
it also fails. This means that the first subgoal for Rule 5 fails and In this example, we have shown how knowledge can be
therefore Rule 5 fails. We try Rule 6 which also fails and, there- structured in small chunks, i.e., as production rules, and how two
fore our initial goal, Rule 9, fails. We next try Rule 10. different Inference Engines can search through this Knowledge
Notice that the Inference Engine as we described it has no Base to arrive at a goal. Both Inference Engines are domain
memory. It will repeat the same processing for [is carnivore] in independent. That is, there is nothing about them that depends
Rule 10, will fail at [is ungulate] in Rules 11 and 12, and in Rule upon this being an animal knowledge base. They both are able to
13 will backward chain from [is bird] to Rule 3. Now the add new facts, e.g., [is bird], to the Global Database.
antecedent, [has feathers], is in the Global Database, thus the rule With this example, we can see how expert systems differ
succeeds and [is bird] is added to the Global Database. Rules 13 from other processing paradigms. One could, for example, write a
and 14 fail at [does not fly], but Rule 15 has both its antecedents program in which all the rules were in the form o f I F - T H E N -
in the Global Database and therefore succeeds. ELSE statements. It then could be compiled, and - - for this sim-
In this first example, a goal directed search was used. The ple example - - would operate essentially the same way with
Inference Engine started with the rules identified as goals. When- improved efficiency. The compiled program, however, would
 25

combine the knowledge and the control flow. As new changes to
the knowledge are identified, the program would have to be
rewritten. In the production rule system, on the other hand, the
knowledge is maintained as i n d e p e n d e n t rules that can be added
to or modified without changing the Inference Engine.
T h u s , the coding as an algorithm improves performance at
the expense o f flexibility. For static, well understood domains,
formalization as algorithms is to be recommended. Next we con-
sider how the expert system differs from a database application.
After all, the K n o w l e d g e Base used in this example really is only a
database. T h e key difference is that databases can retrieve only
information that has been stored. Most DBMSs have tools to select
subsets of data or compute the average value for a numeric field.
A DBMS could find albatross as the answer to a question with the
query terms "bird" and "good flier." But it does not have the ability
to recognize that [is bird] is implied by [has feathers]. To do ibis
requires a predefined structuring of the knowledge with an
appropriate inference mechanism.
O f course, this simple example does nothing useful. Neither
does it deal with any of the difficult issues. In the following sec-
tion we present several examples taken from a simple expert sys-
tem which operates on this database. We use these examples to
illustrate what some of the problems are in going from a simple
conceptual design to a practical, operational system.
A Simple Production Rule System
As part of a larger project, several prototype rule based
expert systems are being implemented. Each is being treated as a
prototype, i.e., a partially implemented application intended to
gain a better understanding of the problems involved. The goal of
the prototype is to gain experience; the prototypes are intended to
bc discarded. We illustrate how an expert system works by way of
one of these prototypes. The code was developed over a two day
period using T E D I U M * to generate an operational system that
runs in MUMPS. This prototype was integrated with a larger pro-
totype intended to explore ideas in '- ~nuw~cugc
~ ' ~ ~ representation.
Both prototypes have been abandoned. In what follows, we illus-
trate the inference m e c h a n i s m of the expert system prototype
* TEDIUM in ~ registered trademark of Tedious Enterprises, Inc.
using the knowledge base presented in Table 1. T h e next section
identifies some of the deficiencies o f this approach and discusses
the direction o f the next prototype.
T h e prototype expert s~,stem to be presented here used both
goal directed a n d data directed searching. First, the user would
enter what was k n o w n about the animal. T h e n the system would
execute a goal directed search to see if a goal had been reached.
If not, it would do a data directed search. If any facts were added
to the Global Database, then the goal directed search would be
repeated. If it failed, then the most likely goal would be identified
and s h o w n to the user. T h e system would then try to verify the
unproven antecedents by a combination of user inputs and search-
ing.
Figure 3 illustrates this basic flow. T h e user enters four facts
about the animal. F r o m the data directed search, the Inference
Engine determines, by Rule 1, that because thc animal has hair it
is a mammal. In another iteration, by Rule 8, it adds
[is ungulate]
[is even-toedl
to the Global Database. Even with these facts, we are not certain
about the goal, therefore the system lists out the most likely goal,
Rule 11. In this prototype the rule is described with text ("the
animal is ..."), but the description could have been c o m p o s e d from
the rule itself. T w o facts are missing to establish that Rule I1
holds in this case. T h e user is asked if each fact is true. Because
they are, the conclusion is drawn a n d each substantiating inference
is listed.
Some expert systems will print out explanations only on
request. T h e y typically have a H O W c o m m a n d (i.e., how did the
system reach this conclusion?) a n d a WHY c o m m a n d (i.e., why
does the system need to know this fact?). In this example, the how
and w h y are always listed. With a larger K n o w l e d g e Base, this
may result in a cluttered dialog that confuses more t h a n it clarifies.
T h e example in Figure 4 s h o w s how the s y s t e m manages
backward chaining. Three facts are given, Rule I l (that this is a
giraffe) is considered the most logical, and the fact [is ungulate] is
accepted as a subgoal. T h e system asks,
IS T H I S T R U E ( Y / N )

E N T E R FACT : has dark spots

E N T E R FACT : has long neck
E N T E R F A C T : chews cud
E N T E R F A C T : has hair
ENTER FACT :
T H A N K YOU, P R O C E S S I N G BEGINS.
W I T H TIIE GIVEN FACTS, TIIE MOST L I K E L Y G O A L IS D E F I N E D BY RULE ii
The a n i m a l is a g i r a f f e b e c a u s e it is an u n g u l a t e , has a long neck and legs, and
h a s a tawny color w i t h dark spots.
T H I S IS IMPLIED BY TIIE F O L L O W I N G FACTS
[is ungulate]
[has long neck]
[has dark spots]
T H E F O L L O W I N G FACTS M U S T BE TRUE TO REACH T H I S G O A L
has long legs
IS Tills TRUE (Y/N)
has tawny color
IS TIIIS TRUE (Y/N)
The animal has hair and t h e r e f o r e is a m a m m a l .
The a n i m a l is a m a m m a l w h i c h chews its cud, t h e r e f o r e it is an e v e n - t o e d u n g u l a t
e.
The a n i m a l is a g i r a f f e b e c a u s e it is an u n g u l a t e , has a long neck and legs, and
has a tawny color with dark spots.

Figure 3 Sample Expert Flow

 26

Yes would add it to the Global Database, No indicates that there
is no knowledge o f its truth. (This is different, of course, from
saying that it is not true, i.e., false.) T h e system asks if it should
try to find the truth or this subgoal. When the user responds Yes,
it first attempts Rule 8. This requires that both
[is mammal]
[chews cudl
be true. When the user indicates that they are true, [is ungulate] is
added to the Global Database. Rulc l 1 is forested and found to be
true.
T h e sample in Figure 5 illustrates how easy it is for the sys-
tem to respond in an u n r e a s o n a b l e way. Here two facts are
entered and we expect the path to lead to a conclusion of giraffe.
But the system in this case responds to individual facts first. [has
tawny color] suggests a tiger. This is a poor choice because we
know tigers do not have long necks. T o prove that it is a tiger, the
system asks if it is a carnivore. When we reject this fact, it exam-
ines other possible animals and fixes on [has long neck]. N o w it
considers if it is an ostrich, and continues with the subgoal [is
bird]. Clearly, a better algorithm for ranking the probable goals
would eliminate this particular example. Yet it does point out h o w
expert systems m a y fix on key facts inappropriately.
N o w consider the example in Figure 6. Here a partial fact
"has lea" is entered and a dictionary lookup asks if the user
wanted "has feathers." This is a routine error test in a data process-
ing environment. Many AI systems apply m o r e sophisticated test-
ing by using a D W I M (do what l mean) approach. In any case,
note that an expert system must maintain a consistent internal
vocabulary. T w o other facts next are added. T h e inference is
made that this is a bird, a n d the most logical choice is presented:
Rule 14, this is a penguin. T h e user is asked if it is true that this
animal does not fly. T h e No indicates no knowledge, and so the
system scarchcs for a rule to prove [does not fly], i.e., one with
[does not fly] as a consequent. Because none exists, it is a s s u m e d
that [docs not fly] is not true and Rule 14, it is a penguin, also
fails. (Note that a s s u m i n g that a fact is not true does not imply that
it is false. It only m e a n s that there is no knowledge o f its truth.)
T h e next possible rule is Rute 15, it is an albatross. The
antceedcnt [is good flier] is asked, and after the user states that
this is true thc conclusion is drawn that this is an albatross
Limitations of this Simple Expert System
The four examples of the prcvious section illustrate some of
the problcms with this type of vcry simple system. In the first
example, the fact was established that the animal was even-toed.
This fact indecd was truc for a giraffe, but it was nevcr used. T h u s
the answer had a "left ovcr" fact. In the Figure 5 example, the first
two possible goals were not good choices. Tigers do not have long
necks; the ostrich [is black a n d white] and conscqucntly does not
have tawny color. T h e fact about color could be inferred if the
K n o w l e d g e Base has knowledge of color as well as animals.
Finally, in the last example, we said that the albatross swims cven
though (a) that fact was not in the K n o w l e d g e Base and (b) it
probably is not accurate. In this case the "left over" fact m a y have
contradicted the advice.
In addition to the problem of dealing with u n u s e d facts,
there is the question of what to do if all the antecedcnts have not
bccn established for a goal. In this simple example, if the animal is
a carnivore with clark spots, then only Rule 9 would hold, i.e., it is
a chcetah. Yet if we know that it is a carnivore with t a w n y color,
then there arc two possible choices. Here is an example of uncer-
tainty. Wc nccd more information (such as the location of the
animal, the distinction of animal populations, other characteristics
of the animal, etc.) before we can suggest the most probable solu-
tion. If that information is not available, then the fact that it is one
o f two animals m a y be useful in and o f itself.

ENTER FACT : has long legs

E N T E R FACT : has long n e c k
E N T E R FACT : has t a w n y c o l o r
E N T E R FACT :
T H A N K YOU, P R O C E S S I N G B E G I N S .
WITH THE G I V E N FACTS, THE M O S T L I K E L Y G O A L IS D E F I N E D BY R U L E ii
The a n i m a l is a g i r a f f e b e c a u s e it is an u n g u l a t e , has a long neck and legs, and
has a tawny c o l o r w i t h dark spots.
THIS IS I M P L I E D BY T H E F O L L O W I N G F A C T S
[has long legs]
[has long neck]
[has t a w n y color]
THE F O L L O W I N G F A C T S M U S T BE T R U E TO REACH T H I S G O A L
is u n g u l a t e
IS T H I S T R U E (Y/N) N
THE Q U E S T I O N IS is u n g u l a t e T R U E ?
A T T E M P T TO F I N D THE T R U T H OF THIS F A C T (Y/N) Y
WE S H A L L C O N S I D E R THE S U B G O A L RULE 8
The a n i m a l is a m a m m a l w h i c h chews its cud, t h e r e f o r e it is an e v e n - t o e d u n g u l a t
e.
T E S T THIS S U B G O A L (Y/N) Y
c h e w s cud
IS THIS T R U E (Y/N)
R E E V A L U A T I N G G O A L S B A S E D U P O N NEW FACTS
W I T H THE G I V E N FACTS, T H E M O S T L I K E L Y G O A L IS D E F I N E D BY R U L E ii
The animal is a g i r a f f e b e c a u s e it is an u n g u l a t e , has a long neck and legs, and
has a t a w n y c o l o r w i t h dark spots.

Figure 4 Backward Chaining Example

 27

E N T E R FACT : has long neck

E N T E R FACT : has t a w n y c o l o r
E N T E R FACT :
T H A N K YOUr P R O C E S S I N G B E G I N S °
W I T H T H E G I V E N F A C T S , THE M O S T L I K E L Y G O A L IS D E F I N E D BY RULE i0
We k n o w that this is a t i g e r b e c a u s e it is a c a r n i v o r e with a t a w n y c o l o r and bl
ack s t r i p e s .
T H I S IS I M P L I E D BY THE F O L L O W I N G FACTS
[has t a w n y color]
T H E F O L L O W I N G F A C T S M U S T BE T R H E TO REACH THIS G O A L
is c a r n i v o r e
IS T H I S T R U E (Y/N) N
T H E Q U E S T I O N IS is c a r n i v o r e T R U E ?
A T T E M P T TO F I N D T H E T R U T H OF T H I S FACT (Y/N) N
W I T H T H E G I V E N FACTS, T H E M O S T L I K E L Y G O A L IS D E F I N E D BY RULE 13
The a n i m a l is an o s t r i c h b e c a u s e it is a bird w h i c h d o e s not fly, it has long le
gs and neck, and it is b l a c k and white.
THIS IS I M P L I E D BY THE F O L L O W I N G FACTS
[has long neck]
T H E F O L L O W I N G F A C T S M U S T BE T R U E T O REACH THIS G O A L
is bird
IS T H I S T R U E (Y/N) N

Figure 5 A Sample of Unreasonable Behavior

E N T E R FACT : has lea

THIS IS NOT A K N O W N FACT, (S)CAN THE FACTS OR ( R ) E N T E R
has f e a t h e r s
(A)CCEPT OR (N)EXT
E N T E R FACT : s w i m s
E N T E R F A C T : is b l a c k and w h i t e
E N T E R FACT :
T H A N K YOU, P R O C E S S I N G B E G I N S .
W I T H THE G I V E N FACTS, THE M O S T L I K E L Y G O A L IS D E F I N E D BY RULE 14
The a n i m a l is a p e n g u i n b e c a u s e it is a bird that d o e s not fly but s w i m s and is
b l a c k and w h i t e .
THIS IS I M P L I E D BY THE F O L L O W I N G FACTS
[is bird]
[swims]
[is b l a c k a n d white]
T H E F O L L O W I N G F A C T S M U S T BE T R U E T O REACH T H I S G O A L
does not fly
IS T H I S T R U E (Y/N) N
T H E R E IS NO W A Y T O I N F E R THIS FROM O T H E R FACTS, W I L L C O N S I D E R O T H E R G O A L S
W I T H T H E G I V E N FACTS, T H E M O S T LIKELY G O A L IS D E F I N E D BY RULE 15
The a n i m a l is an a l b a t r o s s b e c a u s e it is a bird w h i c h is a good flier.
T H I S IS I M P L I E D BY T H E F O L L O W I N G FACTS
[is bird]
THE F O L L O W I N G F A C T S M U S T BE T R U E T O REACH T H I S G O A L
is g o o d f l i e r
IS T H I S T R U E (Y/N) Y
The a n i m a l has f e a t h e r s and t h e r e f o r e is a bird.
The a n i m a l is an a l b a t r o s s b e c a u s e it is a bird w h i c h is a good flier.

Figure 6 A Sample with Unresolved Facts

 28

T h e r e also is another kind of unccrtainty: that which is
implicit in the rule. For example, there might be a rule that if it
flies, then it is most likely a bird. Facts in this case would not just
be true or unknown; they would be known with some certainty
factor. T h e n the logic for selecting the most likely goal would not
be based on only finding the antecedents; it would require mani-
pulations of both facts and their certainty factors to establish the
most likely goals. If the certainties were established with some
precision, then one could apply Bayesian statistics: in general,
however, expert systems use subjective certainty factors based on
a 5 or I0 point scale.
Finally, note that this simple example did not consider the
"obvious" facts that, if it is a bird, it is not a mammal and if
confident that we can proOuce an acceptable EMYCIN-Iike shell
in a matter of weeks. Based upon some preliminary analysis, it
appears that m u c h of the work in developing E M Y C I N involves
user interaction and data entry/validation. These are functions
ideally suited to T E D I U M (and MUMPS), and therefore we are
confident that they can be implemented quickly. We believe that
the result will be a prototype upon which we can build the expert
systems that we need: one that supports database m a n a g e m e n t ,
easy interfaces with external systems, and the ability to insert pro-
cedural code. Although Lisp clearly is superior for the problem of
implementing an inference engine, we feel that T E D I U M (and
MUMPS) have some advantages for some of the other functions.
This prototype will test that assertion with relatively large sets of
rules.

[does not fly] is true, then Conclusions

[is good flier] is false.
By using production rules written in this form, some of the
knowledge is fragmented and obvious associations are lost. O n e
could o v e r c o m e these linguistic problems by identifying variables
such as fly with the valid values o f "does not" and "is good". T h e n
the a n t e c e d e n t s in the rules might look like:
If "fly" equals "does not".
In this particular case, the result is a w k w a r d but understandable.
A neater, but more difficult, solution would be to use natural
language processing to translate:
This paper is intended to introduce the reader to some of the
concepts associated with expert systems. A very simple expert
system and knowledge base was used as an illustration. Every-
thing was implemented in M U M P S , and most response times were
satisfactory. Because the implementation tools were designed for
databases and the knowledge base was stored as a database, why
was the resultant "expert system" not just another database appli-
cation? That is a reasonable question.
If one wished to i m p l e m e n t the knowledge recorded in Table
1 as a relational database, one might restructure it by identifying
attributes and values as s h o w n in Table 2. Using standard data-
base tools, one t h e n could ask the questions:

T h e animal does not fly What bird flies?

It doesn't fly What bird has long legs, a long neck, is black and white,
It's a nonflier a n d does not fly?
into the above expression.
T h e results would be the same as if the expert s y s t e m were used.
Finally, we should point out that the user interface in this One also could ask,
prototype was designed to display the problem solving activity
from the perspective of the inference engine. It told the user what What animals have long necks?
it was evaluating and h o w it was searching. Although the input
function did not allow the user to enter invalid information, the and get a list the same as would be reported by the expert system.
interface was still unnatural. To restructure a system so that it
may maintain a more reasonable dialog, some expert system shells However, if one asked,
implement an "ask first" property that forces the system to ask
questions at appropriate points d u r i n g the consultation. What animal has hair, chews cud, and is white with black
stripes?
T h e obvious question is, h o w does one overcome these diffi-
culties? In our situation we intend to implement our next proto- then the database approach could not satisfy the query. O f course,
type expert s y s t e m shell based u p o n the model established by the database could be e x p a n d e d with the additional attributes has
E M Y C I N . T h i s is the Stanford developed "Essential M Y C I N " hair (yes or no) and c h e w s c u d (yes or no). O n e could write a pro-
d o m a i n - i n d e p e n d e n t framework for constructing rule-based con- gram to add entries with (yes, yes) for every ungulate, (yes, no) for
sultants. It is M Y C I N stripped of its d o m a i n knowledge. T h e every other m a m m a l , and (no, no) for the remaining animals. But
Texas I n s t r u m e n t s Personal Consultant (PC) is a commercial it should be obvious that this becomes a very clumsy w a y to solve
implementation o f this model. a problem. Nevertheless, for small, well u n d e r s t o o d problem
domains that can be described fully with a database, the database
Clearly, a full explanation o f E M Y C I N cannot be presented
paradigm is generally more effective than the expert system.
here. It is rule based, but the a n t e c e d e n t s contain expressions
(e.g., animal color = "tawny") a n d they m a y be associated using
boolean algebra. T h e shell supports certainty factors (CF) plus the As~sl Gap C~rdor Pllte~x Fly Swim
grouping of rules in contexts (e.g., patient, infection, therapy).
eb~tah clLrmvor¢
There are m a n y tools for string manipulation so that internal
representations m a y be t r a n s f o r m e d into user friendly text. For t~cr ca~'nJvorc mw.y black
example, the Lisp S-expression u.ng'uiatc mway dark

~bra ungutatc while black ~ ¢ s

(SAME C N T X T SITE B L O O D )
ollrich bird black and white nOl

can be translated automatically into pclaguin bird black a n d white not yes

albatro~.~ bird soo<~

T h e site of the culture is blood.
D e v e l o p m e n t of this next prototype is underway. We have
learned e n o u g h from our mistakes with the first prototypes to feel Table 2 Animal Knowledge Base as a Data Base (Goals Only)

S E E PTI. 14