An image texture is the small-scale structure perceived on an image, based on the spatial arrangement of color or intensities. It can be quantified by a set of metrics calculated in image processing. Image texture metrics give us information about the whole image or selected regions. Image textures can be artificially created or found in natural scenes captured in an image. Image textures are one way that can be used to help in segmentation or classification of images. For more accurate segmentation the most useful features are spatial frequency and an average grey level. To analyze an image texture in computer graphics, there are two ways to approach the issue: structured approach and statistical approach. == Structured approach == A structured approach sees an image texture as a set of primitive texels in some regular or repeated pattern. This works well when analyzing artificial textures. To obtain a structured description a characterization of the spatial relationship of the texels is gathered by using Voronoi tessellation of the texels. == Statistical approach == A statistical approach sees an image texture as a quantitative measure of the arrangement of intensities in a region. In general this approach is easier to compute and is more widely used, since natural textures are made of patterns of irregular subelements. === Edge detection === The use of edge detection is to determine the number of edge pixels in a specified region, helps determine a characteristic of texture complexity. After edges have been found the direction of the edges can also be applied as a characteristic of texture and can be useful in determining patterns in the texture. These directions can be represented as an average or in a histogram. Consider a region with N pixels. the gradient-based edge detector is applied to this region by producing two outputs for each pixel p: the gradient magnitude Mag(p) and the gradient direction Dir(p). The edgeness per unit area can be defined by F e d g e n e s s = | { p | M a g ( p ) > T } | N {\displaystyle F_{edgeness}={\frac {|\{p|Mag(p)>T\}|}{N}}} for some threshold T. To include orientation with edgeness histograms for both gradient magnitude and gradient direction can be used. Hmag(R) denotes the normalized histogram of gradient magnitudes of region R, and Hdir(R) denotes the normalized histogram of gradient orientations of region R. Both are normalized according to the size NR Then F m a g , d i r = ( H m a g ( R ) , H d i r ( R ) ) {\displaystyle F_{mag,dir}=(H_{mag}(R),H_{dir}(R))} is a quantitative texture description of region R. === Co-occurrence matrices === The co-occurrence matrix captures numerical features of a texture using spatial relations of similar gray tones. Numerical features computed from the co-occurrence matrix can be used to represent, compare, and classify textures. The following are a subset of standard features derivable from a normalized co-occurrence matrix: A n g u l a r 2 n d M o m e n t = ∑ i ∑ j p [ i , j ] 2 C o n t r a s t = ∑ i = 1 N g ∑ j = 1 N g n 2 p [ i , j ] , where | i − j | = n C o r r e l a t i o n = ∑ i = 1 N g ∑ j = 1 N g ( i j ) p [ i , j ] − μ x μ y σ x σ y E n t r o p y = − ∑ i ∑ j p [ i , j ] l n ( p [ i , j ] ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}Angular{\text{ }}2nd{\text{ }}Moment&=\sum _{i}\sum _{j}p[i,j]^{2}\\Contrast&=\sum _{i=1}^{Ng}\sum _{j=1}^{Ng}n^{2}p[i,j]{\text{, where }}|i-j|=n\\Correlation&={\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{Ng}\sum _{j=1}^{Ng}(ij)p[i,j]-\mu _{x}\mu _{y}}{\sigma _{x}\sigma _{y}}}\\Entropy&=-\sum _{i}\sum _{j}p[i,j]ln(p[i,j])\\\end{aligned}}} where p [ i , j ] {\displaystyle p[i,j]} is the [ i , j ] {\displaystyle [i,j]} th entry in a gray-tone spatial dependence matrix, and Ng is the number of distinct gray-levels in the quantized image. One negative aspect of the co-occurrence matrix is that the extracted features do not necessarily correspond to visual perception. It is used in dentistry for the objective evaluation of lesions [DOI: 10.1155/2020/8831161], treatment efficacy [DOI: 10.3390/ma13163614; DOI: 10.11607/jomi.5686; DOI: 10.3390/ma13173854; DOI: 10.3390/ma13132935] and bone reconstruction during healing [DOI: 10.5114/aoms.2013.33557; DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/22185098; EID: 2-s2.0-81455161223; DOI: 10.3390/ma13163649]. === Laws texture energy measures === Another approach is to use local masks to detect various types of texture features. Laws originally used four vectors representing texture features to create sixteen 2D masks from the outer products of the pairs of vectors. The four vectors and relevant features were as follows: L5 = [ +1 +4 6 +4 +1 ] (Level) E5 = [ -1 -2 0 +2 +1 ] (Edge) S5 = [ -1 0 2 0 -1 ] (Spot) R5 = [ +1 -4 6 -4 +1 ] (Ripple) To these 4, a fifth is sometimes added: W5 = [ -1 +2 0 -2 +1 ] (Wave) From Laws' 4 vectors, 16 5x5 "energy maps" are then filtered down to 9 in order to remove certain symmetric pairs. For instance, L5E5 measures vertical edge content and E5L5 measures horizontal edge content. The average of these two measures is the "edginess" of the content. The resulting 9 maps used by Laws are as follows: L5E5/E5L5 L5R5/R5L5 E5S5/S5E5 S5S5 R5R5 L5S5/S5L5 E5E5 E5R5/R5E5 S5R5/R5S5 Running each of these nine maps over an image to create a new image of the value of the origin ([2,2]) results in 9 "energy maps," or conceptually an image with each pixel associated with a vector of 9 texture attributes. === Autocorrelation and power spectrum === The autocorrelation function of an image can be used to detect repetitive patterns of textures. == Texture segmentation == The use of image texture can be used as a description for regions into segments. There are two main types of segmentation based on image texture, region based and boundary based. Though image texture is not a perfect measure for segmentation it is used along with other measures, such as color, that helps solve segmenting in image. === Region based === Attempts to group or cluster pixels based on texture properties. === Boundary based === Attempts to group or cluster pixels based on edges between pixels that come from different texture properties.
MyRadar
MyRadar is a free weather forecasting application developed by Andy Green and his Orlando, Florida-based company ACME AtronOmatic (ACME). The app began operations in 2008 and ran on government-provided weather and radar data for its first decade. In 2019, ACME launched personal satellites to improve predictions of ongoing weather. The app received funding to improve its radar and imaging from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Office of Naval Research (ONR). ACME created a weather data satellite constellation named "Hyperspectral Orbital Remote Imaging Spectrometer" (HORIS), which utilizes machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) to create a current weather map. With the introduction of additional features, including the detection of wildfires and illegal fishing, the app has more broadly become an environmental intelligence app since 2022. In 2024, the app partnered with the Total Traffic and Weather Network (TTWN) to provide traffic flow and incident data for users with paying subscriptions via CarPlay and Android Auto. == History == The app's creator, Andy Green, had created internet tech since the 1980s. His first major project was the development of a public access internet service company based in Rhode Island, which he later sold to finance the creation of ACME AtronOmatic ("ACME" for short), based in Orlando, Florida. The first major app created by ACME was called "Flightwise", which provided users with flight tracking information. In summer 2008, Green had the idea to use the animated location tracker already built-in to Flightwise to make a stand-alone weather forecasting app after wondering if a meal he was eating outdoors would get rained out. MyRadar was launched in 2012 out of an office in Orlando. Despite running solely off of free government-provided weather and radar data for the first decade after launch, Green said the app "took off like wildfire" in downloads. In December 2017, the app partnered with "TripIt" to provide users with information about flight delays and gate changes, eliminating the need for a separate app like Flightwise. In 2019, ACME launched their first personal satellite for the app, a small prototype from New Zealand, as part of an effort to provide detailed imagery and improved predictions of ongoing weather unique to the app. More satellites were eventually launched by ACME to create a weather data satellite constellation named "Hyperspectral Orbital Remote Imaging Spectrometer" (HORIS), monitored by ground stations maintained by Kongsberg Satellite Services. HORIS operates MyRadar by taking the environmental data and imagery it collects and pairing it with machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) to create a real-time weather map. In 2022, HORIS was expanded upon after ACME won approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to improve their satellite constellation to include 250 satellites or more. The main batch of satellites were PocketQubes, which entered the atmosphere on May 2, 2022, by Rocket Lab Electron launched from New Zealand, with the additional purpose to test and validate the existing satellites in orbit. In October 2022, ACME received a US$150,000 Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to improve the app's wildfire detection and air quality measurement technology to better detect smoke, aerosols, fire hotspots using satellites and aerial drones. On August 18, 2023, phase two of the NOAA grant was approved, providing an additional US$650,000 to aid in the app's aforementioned goals by launching a pair of CubeSat satellites to provide high-definition infrared imagery. On September 8, 2023, ACME secured another US$1,200,000 in crowd funding to aid accomplishing the goals of the NOAA grant by expanding the app's workforce from 35 to 100 employees by the end of 2024. In January 2024, MyRadar partnered with Total Traffic and Weather Network (TTWN) to provide traffic data overlaid with its pre-existing weather graphics for users in the United States. The partnership allowed for the app to additionally become a tool for navigation. This officially became a feature days later on January 8, 2024, when the app was made compatible with Apple's CarPlay. On February 7, 2024, the Android equivalent Android Auto also gained the ability to display the app on car interfaces. In March 2024, the app launched a "meteorological wedding planning service" in the United States and Canada for prices between US$1,000 and US$5,000, in which users can request a personal meteorologist to provide an in-person meeting about the best dates for a wedding, and on-call local weather updates the day of. Scheduled for February 2025, four more satellites to help with the NOAA-sponsored wildfire detection are to be launched, and the first by ACME to have AI processing in the satellites themself and not computers on the ground, allowing for quicker transfer of information. == Features and general information == The app's primary function is to provide weather forecasting and prediction to users. The app includes toggleable options to track and send alerts to users for rain, wind patterns, earthquakes, tornadoes, tropical cyclones, wildfires, and more. In early 2020, a feature was added to track orbital objects such as the International Space Station. In May 2022, with the imagery improvement of HORIS, the app gained the secondary abilities to better monitor algae blooms, coral reefs, illegal fishing, and wildfires. In January and February 2024, the ability to display traffic flow and incident data in a feature called "RouteCast" was added, and can be displayed in video and 3D options via CarPlay and Android Auto for users with paying subscriptions. The app also provides annual tropical storm and tornado outlooks for their respective seasons, gathered through satellite and aerial drone data, as well as through on the ground storm chasers.
Unique name assumption
The unique name assumption is a simplifying assumption made in some ontology languages and description logics. In logics with the unique name assumption, different names always refer to different entities in the world. It was included in Ray Reiter's discussion of the closed-world assumption often tacitly included in Database Management Systems (e.g. SQL) in his 1984 article "Towards a logical reconstruction of relational database theory" (in M. L. Brodie, J. Mylopoulos, J. W. Schmidt (editors), Data Modelling in Artificial Intelligence, Database and Programming Languages, Springer, 1984, pages 191–233). The standard ontology language OWL does not make this assumption, but provides explicit constructs to express whether two names denote the same or distinct entities. owl:sameAs is the OWL property that asserts that two given names or identifiers (e.g., URIs) refer to the same individual or entity. owl:differentFrom is the OWL property that asserts that two given names or identifiers (e.g., URIs) refer to different individuals or entities.
Hallin's spheres
Hallin's spheres is a theory of news reporting and its rhetorical framing posited by journalism historian Daniel C. Hallin in his 1986 book The Uncensored War to explain the news coverage of the Vietnam War. Hallin divides the world of political discourse into three concentric spheres: consensus, legitimate controversy, and deviance. In the sphere of consensus, journalists assume everyone agrees. The sphere of legitimate controversy includes the standard political debates, and journalists are expected to remain neutral. The sphere of deviance falls outside the bounds of legitimate debate, and journalists can ignore it. These boundaries shift, as public opinion shifts. Hallin's spheres, which deals with the media, are similar to the Overton window, which deals with public opinion generally, and posits a sliding scale of public opinion on any given issue ranging from conventional wisdom to unacceptable. Hallin used the concept of framing to describe the presentation and reception of issues in public. For example, framing the use of drugs as criminal activity can encourage the public to consider that behavior anti-social. Hallin's work was later referred to in the controversial formulation of the concept of an opinion corridor, in which the range of acceptable public opinion narrows, and opinion outside that corridor moves from legitimate controversy into deviance. == Description == === Sphere of consensus === This sphere contains those topics on which there is widespread agreement, or at least the perception thereof. Within the sphere of consensus, "journalists feel free to invoke a generalized 'we' and to take for granted shared values and shared assumptions". Examples include such things as motherhood and apple pie. For topics in this sphere, journalists feel free to be advocating cheerleaders without having to be neutral or present any opposing view point and be disinterested observers." === Sphere of legitimate controversy === For topics in this sphere rational and informed people hold differing views within limited range. These topics are therefore the most important to cover, and also ones upon which journalists are seemingly obliged to remain disinterested reporters, rather than advocating for or against a particular view. Schudson notes that Hallin, in his influential study of the US media during the Vietnam War, argues that journalism's commitment to objectivity has always been compartmentalized. That is, within a certain sphere—the sphere of legitimate controversy—journalists seek conscientiously to be balanced and objective. The work of Walter Williams professor at the University of Missouri, Rod Petersen, advanced the idea that priming—controlling the narratives that media covers—can be the tool that media use to get deviant news subjects into the legitimate controversial circles of new coverage. === Sphere of deviance === Topics in this sphere are rejected by journalists as being unworthy of general consideration. Such views are perceived as being out of hand, unfounded, taboo, or of such minor consequence that they are not newsworthy. Hallin argues that in the sphere of deviance, "journalists also depart from standard norms of objective reporting and feel authorized to treat as marginal, laughable, dangerous". They either avoid mentioning or ridicule the controversial subject as outside the bounds of acceptable controversy; and they censor the individuals and groups who are associated with it. A simple example: a person claiming that aliens are manipulating college basketball scores might have difficulty finding sports media coverage for such a claim. A more political example: the US media regulator FCC's "Fairness Doctrine" aimed at radio stations, advocated balance between right and left political news and opinions, yet specified that broadcasters did not have to reserve any space or time for Communist viewpoints. == Uses of the terms == Craig Watkins (2001, pp. 92–94) makes use of the Hallin's spheres in a paper examining ABC, CBS, and NBC television network television news coverage of the Million Man March, a demonstration that took place in Washington, D.C., on October 16, 1995. Watkins analyzes the dominant framing practices—problem definition, rhetorical devices, use of sources, and images—employed by journalists to make sense of this particular expression of political protest. He argues that Hallin's three spheres are a way for media framing practices to develop specific reportorial contexts, and each sphere develops its own distinct style of news reporting resources by different rhetorical tropes and discourses. Piers Robinson (2001, p. 536) uses the concept in relation to debates that have emerged over the extent to which the mass media serves elite interests or, alternatively, plays a powerful role in shaping political outcomes. His article reviews Hallin's spheres as an example of media-state relations, that highlights theoretical and empirical shortcomings in the 'manufacturing consent' thesis (Chomsky, McChesney). Robinson argues that a more nuanced and bi-directional understanding is needed of the direction of influence between media and the state that builds upon, rather than rejecting, existing theoretical accounts. Hallin's theory assumed a relatively homogenized media environment, where most producers were trying to reach most consumers. A more fractured media landscape can challenge this assumption because different audiences may place topics in different spheres, a concept related to the filter bubble, which posits that many members of the public choose to limit their media consumption to the areas of consensus and deviance that they personally prefer.
Modular Audio Recognition Framework
Modular Audio Recognition Framework (MARF) is an open-source research platform and a collection of voice, sound, speech, text and natural language processing (NLP) algorithms written in Java and arranged into a modular and extensible framework that attempts to facilitate addition of new algorithms. MARF may act as a library in applications or be used as a source for learning and extension. A few example applications are provided to show how to use the framework. There is also a detailed manual and the API reference in the javadoc format as the project tends to be well documented. MARF, its applications, and the corresponding source code and documentation are released under the BSD-style license.
Description logic
Description logics (DL) are a family of formal knowledge representation languages. Many DLs are more expressive than propositional logic but less expressive than first-order logic. In contrast to the latter, the core reasoning problems for DLs are (usually) decidable, and efficient decision procedures have been designed and implemented for these problems. There are general, spatial, temporal, spatiotemporal, and fuzzy description logics, and each description logic features a different balance between expressive power and reasoning complexity by supporting different sets of mathematical constructors. DLs are used in artificial intelligence to describe and reason about the relevant concepts of an application domain (known as terminological knowledge). It is of particular importance in providing a logical formalism for ontologies and the Semantic Web: the Web Ontology Language (OWL) and its profiles are based on DLs. A major area of application of DLs and OWL is in biomedical informatics, where they assist in the codification of biomedical knowledge. DLs and OWL are also applied in other domains, including defense, climate modeling, and large-scale industrial knowledge graphs. == Introduction == A DL models concepts, roles and individuals, and their relationships. The fundamental modeling concept of a DL is the axiom—a logical statement relating roles and/or concepts. This is a key difference from the frames paradigm where a frame specification declares and completely defines a class. == Nomenclature == === Terminology compared to FOL and OWL === The description logic community uses different terminology than the first-order logic (FOL) community for operationally equivalent notions; some examples are given below. The Web Ontology Language (OWL) uses again a different terminology, also given in the table below. === Naming convention === There are many varieties of description logics and there is an informal naming convention, roughly describing the operators allowed. The expressivity is encoded in the label for a logic starting with one of the following basic logics: Followed by any of the following extensions: ==== Exceptions ==== Some canonical DLs that do not exactly fit this convention are: ==== Examples ==== As an example, A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} is a centrally important description logic from which comparisons with other varieties can be made. A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} is simply A L {\displaystyle {\mathcal {AL}}} with complement of any concept allowed, not just atomic concepts. A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} is used instead of the equivalent A L U E {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALUE}}} . A further example, the description logic S H I Q {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIQ}}} is the logic A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} plus extended cardinality restrictions, and transitive and inverse roles. The naming conventions aren't purely systematic so that the logic A L C O I N {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALCOIN}}} might be referred to as A L C N I O {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALCNIO}}} and other abbreviations are also made where possible. The Protégé ontology editor supports S H O I N ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHOIN}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} . Three major biomedical informatics terminology bases, SNOMED CT, GALEN, and GO, are expressible in E L {\displaystyle {\mathcal {EL}}} (with additional role properties). OWL 2 provides the expressiveness of S R O I Q ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SROIQ}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} , OWL-DL is based on S H O I N ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHOIN}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} , and for OWL-Lite it is S H I F ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIF}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} . == History == Description logic was given its current name in the 1980s. Previous to this it was called (chronologically): terminological systems, and concept languages. === Knowledge representation === Frames and semantic networks lack formal (logic-based) semantics. DL was first introduced into knowledge representation (KR) systems to overcome this deficiency. The first DL-based KR system was KL-ONE (by Ronald J. Brachman and Schmolze, 1985). During the '80s other DL-based systems using structural subsumption algorithms were developed including KRYPTON (1983), LOOM (1987), BACK (1988), K-REP (1991) and CLASSIC (1991). This approach featured DL with limited expressiveness but relatively efficient (polynomial time) reasoning. In the early '90s, the introduction of a new tableau based algorithm paradigm allowed efficient reasoning on more expressive DL. DL-based systems using these algorithms — such as KRIS (1991) — show acceptable reasoning performance on typical inference problems even though the worst case complexity is no longer polynomial. From the mid '90s, reasoners were created with good practical performance on very expressive DL with high worst case complexity. Examples from this period include FaCT, RACER (2001), CEL (2005), and KAON 2 (2005). DL reasoners, such as FaCT, FaCT++, RACER, DLP and Pellet, implement the method of analytic tableaux. KAON2 is implemented by algorithms which reduce a SHIQ(D) knowledge base to a disjunctive datalog program. === Semantic web === The DARPA Agent Markup Language (DAML) and Ontology Inference Layer (OIL) ontology languages for the Semantic Web can be viewed as syntactic variants of DL. In particular, the formal semantics and reasoning in OIL use the S H I Q {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIQ}}} DL. The DAML+OIL DL was developed as a submission to—and formed the starting point of—the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Ontology Working Group. In 2004, the Web Ontology Working Group completed its work by issuing the OWL recommendation. The design of OWL is based on the S H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SH}}} family of DL with OWL DL and OWL Lite based on S H O I N ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHOIN}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} and S H I F ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIF}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} respectively. The W3C OWL Working Group began work in 2007 on a refinement of - and extension to - OWL. In 2009, this was completed by the issuance of the OWL2 recommendation. OWL2 is based on the description logic S R O I Q ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SROIQ}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} . Practical experience demonstrated that OWL DL lacked several key features necessary to model complex domains. == Modeling == === TBox vs Abox === In DL, a distinction is drawn between the so-called TBox (terminological box) and the ABox (assertional box). In general, the TBox contains sentences describing concept hierarchies (i.e., relations between concepts) while the ABox contains ground sentences stating where in the hierarchy, individuals belong (i.e., relations between individuals and concepts). For example, the statement: belongs in the TBox, while the statement: belongs in the ABox. Note that the TBox/ABox distinction is not significant, in the same sense that the two "kinds" of sentences are not treated differently in first-order logic (which subsumes most DL). When translated into first-order logic, a subsumption axiom like (1) is simply a conditional restriction to unary predicates (concepts) with only variables appearing in it. Clearly, a sentence of this form is not privileged or special over sentences in which only constants ("grounded" values) appear like (2). === Motivation for having Tbox and Abox === So why was the distinction introduced? The primary reason is that the separation can be useful when describing and formulating decision-procedures for various DL. For example, a reasoner might process the TBox and ABox separately, in part because certain key inference problems are tied to one but not the other one ('classification' is related to the TBox, 'instance checking' to the ABox). Another example is that the complexity of the TBox can greatly affect the performance of a given decision-procedure for a certain DL, independently of the ABox. Thus, it is useful to have a way to talk about that specific part of the knowledge base. The secondary reason is that the distinction can make sense from the knowledge base modeler's perspective. It is plausible to distinguish between our conception of terms/concepts in the world (class axioms in the TBox) and particular manifestations of those terms/concepts (instance assertions in the ABox). In the above example: when the hierarchy within a company is the same in every branch but the assignment to employees is different in every department (because there are other people working there), it makes sense to reuse the TBox for different branches that do not use the same ABox. There are two features of description logic that are not shared by most other data description formalisms: DL does not make the unique name assumption (UNA) or the closed-world assumption (CWA). Not having UNA means that two concepts with different names may be allowed by some inference to be shown to be equivalent. Not having CWA, or rather having the open world assumption (OWA) means that
Logico-linguistic modeling
Logico-linguistic modeling is a method for building knowledge-based systems with a learning capability using conceptual models from soft systems methodology, modal predicate logic, and logic programming languages such as Prolog. == Overview == Logico-linguistic modeling is a six-stage method developed primarily for building knowledge-based systems (KBS), but it also has application in manual decision support systems and information source analysis. Logico-linguistic models have a superficial similarity to John F. Sowa's conceptual graphs; both use bubble style diagrams, both are concerned with concepts, both can be expressed in logic and both can be used in artificial intelligence. However, logico-linguistic models are very different in both logical form and in their method of construction. Logico-linguistic modeling was developed in order to solve theoretical problems found in the soft systems method for information system design. The main thrust of the research into has been to show how soft systems methodology (SSM), a method of systems analysis, can be extended into artificial intelligence. == Background == SSM employs three modeling devices i.e. rich pictures, root definitions, and conceptual models of human activity systems. The root definitions and conceptual models are built by stakeholders themselves in an iterative debate organized by a facilitator. The strengths of this method lie, firstly, in its flexibility, the fact that it can address any problem situation, and, secondly, in the fact that the solution belongs to the people in the organization and is not imposed by an outside analyst. Information requirements analysis (IRA) took the basic SSM method a stage further and showed how the conceptual models could be developed into a detailed information system design. IRA calls for the addition of two modeling devices: "Information Categories", which show the required information inputs and outputs from the activities identified in an expanded conceptual model; and the "Maltese Cross", a matrix which shows the inputs and outputs from the information categories and shows where new information processing procedures are required. A completed Maltese Cross is sufficient for the detailed design of a transaction processing system. The initial impetus to the development of logico-linguistic modeling was a concern with the theoretical problem of how an information system can have a connection to the physical world. This is a problem in both IRA and more established methods (such as SSADM) because none base their information system design on models of the physical world. IRA designs are based on a notional conceptual model and SSADM is based on models of the movement of documents. The solution to these problems provided a formula that was not limited to the design of transaction processing systems but could be used for the design of KBS with learning capability. == The six stages of logico-linguistic modeling == The logico-linguistic modeling method comprises six stages. === 1. Systems analysis === In the first stage logico-linguistic modeling uses SSM for systems analysis. This stage seeks to structure the problem in the client organization by identifying stakeholders, modelling organizational objectives and discussing possible solutions. At this stage it not assumed that a KBS will be a solution and logico-linguistic modeling often produces solutions that do not require a computerized KBS. Expert systems tend to capture the expertise, of individuals in different organizations, on the same topic. By contrast a KBS, produced by logico-linguistic modeling, seeks to capture the expertise of individuals in the same organization on different topics. The emphasis is on the elicitation of organizational or group knowledge rather than individual experts. In logico-linguistic modeling the stakeholders become the experts. The end point of this stage is an SSM style conceptual models such as figure 1. === 2. Language creation === According to the theory behind logico-linguistic modeling the SSM conceptual model building process is a Wittgensteinian language-game in which the stakeholders build a language to describe the problem situation. The logico-linguistic model expresses this language as a set of definitions, see figure 2. === 3. Knowledge elicitation === After the model of the language has been built putative knowledge about the real world can be added by the stakeholders. Traditional SSM conceptual models contain only one logical connective (a necessary condition). In order to represent causal sequences, "sufficient conditions" and "necessary and sufficient conditions" are also required. In logico-linguistic modeling this deficiency is remedied by two addition types of connective. The outcome of stage three is an empirical model, see figure 3. === 4. Knowledge representation === Modal predicate logic (a combination of modal logic and predicate logic) is used as the formal method of knowledge representation. The connectives from the language model are logically true (indicated by the "L" modal operator) and connective added at the knowledge elicitation stage are possibility true (indicated by the "M" modal operator). Before proceeding to stage 5, the models are expressed in logical formulae. === 5. Computer code === Formulae in predicate logic translate easily into the Prolog artificial intelligence language. The modality is expressed by two different types of Prolog rules. Rules taken from the language creation stage of model building process are treated as incorrigible. While rules from the knowledge elicitation stage are marked as hypothetical rules. The system is not confined to decision support but has a built in learning capability. === 6. Verification === A knowledge based system built using this method verifies itself. Verification takes place when the KBS is used by the clients. It is an ongoing process that continues throughout the life of the system. If the stakeholder beliefs about the real world are mistaken this will be brought out by the addition of Prolog facts that conflict with the hypothetical rules. It operates in accordance to the classic principle of falsifiability found in the philosophy of science == Applications == === Knowledge-based computer systems === Logico-linguistic modeling has been used to produce fully operational computerized knowledge based systems, such as one for the management of diabetes patients in a hospital out-patients department. === Manual decision support === In other projects the need to move into Prolog was considered unnecessary because the printed logico-linguistic models provided an easy-to-use guide to decision making. For example, a system for mortgage loan approval === Information source analysis === In some cases a KBS could not be built because the organization did not have all the knowledge needed to support all their activities. In these cases logico-linguistic modeling showed shortcomings in the supply of information and where more was needed. For example, a planning department in a telecoms company == Criticism == While logico-linguistic modeling overcomes the problems found in SSM's transition from conceptual model to computer code, it does so at the expense of increased stakeholder constructed model complexity. The benefits of this complexity are questionable and this modeling method may be much harder to use than other methods. This contention has been exemplified by subsequent research. An attempt by researchers to model buying decisions across twelve companies using logico-linguistic modeling required simplification of the models and removal of the modal elements.