Scheduled System Maintenance on May 29th, 2015:
IEEE Xplore will be upgraded between 11:00 AM and 10:00 PM EDT. During this time there may be intermittent impact on performance. We apologize for any inconvenience.
By Topic

CARA: A Cultural-Reasoning Architecture

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$31 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

9 Author(s)

There's a constant need to reason about diverse cultures all over the world. Past cultural-reasoning research has focused primarily on techniques to organize, catalog, and reason about cultural and historical artifacts of the kind typically stored in a museum. This is extremely valuable. However, the term "cultural reasoning" as we use it in the previous examples (and in this article) focuses on understanding how different cultural groups today make decisions and what factors those decisions are based on. An architecture that supports cultural reasoning should, for example, be able to pinpoint characteristics that differentiate organizations engaging political action within legitimate frameworks from those engaging in violence and terror. Key in all this is that cultural reasoning must go hand in hand with environmental reasoning. We believe that any architecture to support cultural reasoning about a given group, political entity, business, or religious organization should contain these components: 1) a semantic Web extraction engine to elicit data about the organization, 2) an opinion-mining engine that captures the organization's opinions, 3) an algorithm to correlate environmental variables with actions that the organization takes, and 4) a simulation or game environment within which analysts and users can see what the organization has done and what it might do in hypothetical situations

Published in:

Intelligent Systems, IEEE  (Volume:22 ,  Issue: 2 )