Modeling the user knowledge by belief networks

This paper describes the user modeling component of EPIAIM, a consultation system for data analysis in epidemiology. The component is aimed at representing knowledge of concepts in the domain, so that their explanations can be adapted to user needs. The first part of the paper describes two studies aimed at analysing user requirements. The first one is a questionnaire study which examines the respondents' familiarity with concepts. The second one is an analysis of concept descriptions in textbooks and from expert epidemiologists, which examines how discourse strategies are tailored to the level of experience of the expected audience. The second part of the paper describes how the results of these studies have been used to design the user modeling component of EPIAIM. This module works in a two-step approach. In the first step, a few trigger questions allow the activation of a stereotype that includes a "body" and an "inference component". The body is the representation of the body of knowledge that a class of users is expected to know, along with the probability that the knowledge is known. In the inference component, the learning process of concepts is represented as a belief network. Hence, in the second step the belief network is used to refine the initial default information in the stereotype's body. This is done by asking a few questions on those concepts where it is uncertain whether or not they are known to the user, and propagating this new evidence to revise the whole situation. The system has been implemented on a workstation under UNIX. An example of functioning is presented, and advantages and limitations of the approach are discussed.

User interface standards for expert systems: are they appropriate?

In recent years there has been a growing debate over whether or not standards should be produced for user system interfaces. Those in favor of standardization argue that standards in this area will result in more usable systems, while those against argue that standardization is neither practical nor desirable. The present paper reviews both sides of this debate in relation to expert systems. It argues that in many areas guidelines are more appropriate than standards for user interface design.

Case-based analysis in user requirements modelling for knowledge construction

Context: Learning can be regarded as knowledge construction in which prior knowledge and experience serve as basis for the learners to expand their knowledge base. Such a process of knowledge construction has to take place continuously in order to enhance the learners’ competence in a competitive working environment. As the information consumers, the individual users demand personalised information provision which meets their own specific purposes, goals, and expectations. Objectives: The current methods in requirements engineering are capable of modelling the common user’s behaviour in the domain of knowledge construction. The users’ requirements can be represented as a case in the defined structure which can be reasoned to enable the requirements analysis. Such analysis needs to be enhanced so that personalised information provision can be tackled and modelled. However, there is a lack of suitable modelling methods to achieve this end. This paper presents a new ontological method for capturing individual user’s requirements and transforming the requirements onto personalised information provision specifications. Hence the right information can be provided to the right user for the right purpose. Method: An experiment was conducted based on the qualitative method. A medium size of group of users participated to validate the method and its techniques, i.e. articulates, maps, configures, and learning content. The results were used as the feedback for the improvement. Result: The research work has produced an ontology model with a set of techniques which support the functions for profiling user’s requirements, reasoning requirements patterns, generating workflow from norms, and formulating information provision specifications. Conclusion: The current requirements engineering approaches provide the methodical capability for developing solutions. Our research outcome, i.e. the ontology model with the techniques, can further enhance the RE approaches for modelling the individual user’s needs and discovering the user’s requirements.

Legitimacy and rights in the EU: questions of identity

Rights as well as democracy play a crucial role in the legitimacy of the EU and constitutional patriotism has been influential in attempting to link them together. The article seeks to engage in a critique of constitutional patriotism on two fronts. First, it distinguishes between the various types of right that exist within EU law-Community, citizenship and fundamental-and then analyses the place of these rights within various political models of the EU ranging from nationalism to republicanism. It argues that constitutional patriotism does not enjoy a monopoly on rights discourse in the EU: most models of the EU see a place for rights; it is just that the type of right supported varies. Secondly, advocates of constitutional patriotism argue that EU rights generate European identity. The article questions the extent to which this is the case, arguing that identity potential varies considerably according to the type of EU right concerned.

Access, equity and the role of rights in health care

Modern health care rhetoric promotes choice and individual patient rights as dominant values. Yet we also accept that in any regime constrained by finite resources, difficult choices between patients are inevitable. How can we balance rights to liberty, on the one hand, with equity in the allocation of scarce resources on the other? For example, the duty of health authorities to allocate resources is a duty owed to the community as a whole, rather than to specific individuals. Macro-duties of this nature are founded on the notion of equity and fairness amongst individuals rather than personal liberty. They presume that if hard choices have to be made, they will be resolved according to fair and consistent principles which treat equal cases equally, and unequal cases unequally. In this paper, we argue for greater clarity and candour in the health care rights debate. With this in mind, we discuss (1) private and public rights, (2) negative and positive rights, (3) procedural and substantive rights, (4) sustainable health care rights and (5) the New Zealand booking system for prioritising access to elective services. This system aims to consider: individual need and ability to benefit alongside the resources made available to elective health services in an attempt to give the principles of equity practical effect. We describe a continuum on which the merits of those, sometimes competing, values-liberty and equity-can be evaluated and assessed.