See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/224329371

Expert System for Banking Credit Decision

Conference Paper · October 2008

DOI: 10.1109/ICCSIT.2008.31 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS
11 6,775

3 authors, including:

Mostafa Mahmoud N. Algadi

Islamic University In Madinah Collage of Computer Science & Information Systems Taif University
14 PUBLICATIONS   68 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   11 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mostafa Mahmoud on 04 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Expert System for Banking Credit Decision
Mostafa Mahmoud∗
Faculty of Computer Science and Engineering
Taibah University
Madinah Munawwarah, KSA
Email: mkhaleel@taibahu.edu.sa
Abstract
The problem of credit-risk evaluation is a very
challenging and important financial analysis problem.
Recently, researchers have found that expert systems
perform very well for this complex and unstructured
problem when compared to more traditional statistical
approaches. Expert systems with explanation for
decision making can achieve a high predictive
accuracy rate; the reasoning behind how they reach
their decisions is not readily available. This paper
presents an Expert System for Evaluating and
Supporting Credit Decisions on the Banking sector
(ESESCDB) uses the credit rating weights for each
factor that affecting the decision of the credit. This
work has established an expert system tool that aids
the decision maker to issue the right decision with
familiar and easy-to-use interface. There are two main
methods have been applied to acquire the knowledge of
credit evaluations systems in banking with
effectiveness, efficiency and correctness, they are
direct and indirect methods. The knowledge has been
verified and evaluated with other senior experts, and
then some modifications and enhancements have been
done to reach the final system.
1. Introduction
The banks face very challenging and important
financial problems, because there is a weakness in
credit-risk assessment and completion of loan package.
The banks crises studies in different countries, whether
advanced or developed, point out that most of the
countries which are exposed to financial crises are due
to the main reason of the over due credits (financial
defaults). It is worth mentioning that 131 countries
suffered from bank crises, which differ in its
magnitude during the period (1975-2000). The
∗
On leave of absence from CLAES, ARC, Cairo, Egypt.
Najla Algadi, Ahmed Ali
Collage of Postgraduate Studies
Sudan University of Science and Technology
Khartoum, Sudan
Email: naglaa2002@hotmail.com
situation of the over due debts (financial failure) in
Sudan in the last three years is more than 20% and
increased yearly according the annual report issued
from Central Bank of Sudan. The reasons for these
problems are mainly due to the lack in using good
credit ratings and assessment, which might indicate a
high risk of defaulting on a loan, and thus leads to high
interest rates. In other words, there is a financial
failure, because of the weakness in credit-risk
assessment by the bank granting the credit. Those
problems occurred to the decision maker because the
great number of factors that should be considered with
different weight according to each case and also the
lake of existence knowledge. This financial failure
mainly is due to the lack of experts in banking domain.
To solve this problem an expert system has been
suggested to keep the related knowledge to be used as
a decision support system. The primary goal of the
expert systems is to make expertise available to
decision makers and technicians. Expert knowledge is
a combination of a theoretical understanding of the
problem and a collection of heuristic problem-solving
rules that experience has shown to be effective in the
domain. Many Knowledge Elicitation methods have
been used to obtain the information required to build
the system. Document analysis and decision analysis
are used to classify entities within a domain.
In the following sections, the theoretical base of
credit decision described in section 2, then the previous
work in expert systems in financial planning and credit
presented in section 3. The expert system for banking
credit decision is described in section 4. In section 5
the evaluation of the tool is presented, and finally the
conclusion is in section 6.
2. Theoretical base of credit decision
 There are different kinds of risks that are facing
banks that may be divided into four kinds according to
the classical division: financial risks, operational risks,
business risks, and event risks. In spite of the
importance of all these types of risks that must be
taken care of by managements in banks, yet
concentrate has always been on credit risks as it
represents one of the main risks like market risks,
operational risks, and liquidity risks. Assessing risks is
an ongoing process. It typically involves three steps:
First, a bank may engage in a rigorous analytical
process to identify risks and, where possible, to
quantify them. In the event risks cannot be quantified,
management may still identify how potential risks can
arise and the steps it has taken to deal with and limit
those risks [1,2,3,4,5,13]. Bank management should
form a reasonable and defensible judgments of the
magnitude of any risk with respect to both the impact it
could have on the bank (including the maximum
potential impact), and the probability that such an
event will occur. A second step in assessing risk is for
the board of directors or senior management to
determine the bank’s risk tolerance, based on an
assessment of the losses the bank can afford to sustain
in the event a given problem materializes. Finally,
management can compare its risk tolerance with its
assessment of the magnitude of a risk to ascertain if the
risk exposure fits within the tolerance limits.
3. ES Approach in financial planning and
Credit
Expert Systems (ES), which are sometimes referred
to as knowledge based decision support system, are an
application of AI that helps decision makers make
better decisions. ES approach has been suggested to fill
gabs that appeared when traditional approach was used
in many applications. Such subjects as the general
classifying of ES [7], the various structural
characteristics of ES, the install phases and difficulties
of ES, the implementation conditions of ES, and the
implementing successfully in field of ES. There is an
innovative, experimental approach to a literature
review by Rada R. [6], it begins with queries for
finance-related articles to the ESs with applications
literature database. He found a classification language
that is constructed, and retrieved articles are systematic
indexed. He found also that hypotheses are offered
about the patterns in the distribution of indexed
concepts. Results include that authors tended to use
expert systems tools in the early 1990s but
evolutionary computation tools in mid-2000s.
However, the most common financial application area
in both the earlier and later periods was financial
accounting. One trend in the latest work is to merge
both knowledge-based and evolutionary approaches.
He assures that opportunities exist to reuse the
knowledge bases built for the financial accounting
work for speculative investing. There are many
research and application in the financial planning and
credit field that used expert system as a tool to solve
many problems in this field.
Artificial neural networks have been introduced to
develop objective expert systems in credit risk [5]. A
neural network is ‘‘trained’’ using historical repayment
experience and default data. Structural matches are
found that coincide with defaulting firms and then used
to determine a weighting scheme to forecast
probability of default. Each time the neural network
evaluates the credit risk of a new loan opportunity, it
updates its weighting scheme so that it continually
‘‘learns’’ from experience. Thus, neural networks are
flexible, adaptable systems that can incorporate
changing conditions into the decision-making process.
However, the network may be over-fit to a particular
database if excessive training has taken place, thereby
resulting in poor out-of-sample estimates. Moreover,
neural networks are costly to implement and maintain.
Because of the large number of possible connections,
the neural network can grow prohibitively large rather
quickly. Neural networks suffer from a lack of
transparency. Since there is no clear economic
interpretation that can be attached to the hidden
intermediate steps, the system cannot be checked for
plausibility and accuracy. Structural errors will not be
detected until probability of default estimates become
noticeably inaccurate.
4. ES for Banking Credit Decision
There are two main activities to develop the Expert
System for Evaluating and Supporting Credit
Decisions on the Banking sector Tool (ESESCDB).
The first activity is to acquire the knowledge to build
the knowledge base in the development environment.
The second activity is to integrate the knowledge base
with the user interface in the consultation environment
(Figure 1). In the development environment the
knowledge engineer analyze the available document
including periodicals, references and books, ranks
reports and publications, central bank publications and
policies, researches, working papers, and banks
studies; then meet with the domain experts through the
knowledge acquisition sessions to verify and elicit the
knowledge related to the system from the expert. This
stage is a bottleneck part of building such system.
Consequently the knowledge engineer used the
appropriate knowledge acquisition techniques while
 Consultation Environment
Knowledge
Inference base
System
Dynamic
User Interface
Database
Explanations Explanation
Modules Knowledge
Base
Figure 1 Expert System for Banking Credit Decisions
meeting with the domain experts to elicit and evaluate
the knowledge including the explanation part. During
those meetings the design was establish.
4.1. ES Development Environment
In developing process, we used CommonKADS
methodology [2]. CommonKADS follows a systematic
approach in knowledge engineering that adopts the
concept of modeling in the process of knowledge base
system development. CommonKADS methodology
was chosen due to the fact that most current knowledge
representation approaches are inadequate for the
systematic development of large knowledge base
systems, as they do not strictly separate the analysis
from the design and implementation phases. This
methodology widely used in CLAES+ [10] and
achieves a great success in developing many systems.
The proposed development environment consists of
document analysis and knowledge acquisition
processes, that facilitate building and maintaining
knowledge components libraries and mathematical
models libraries, and constructing knowledge based
systems and mathematical model out of these libraries.
To build the infrastructure for a large scale knowledge
based system, we start with acquiring and classifying
the domain ontology from different sources that is the
+ on them.
Center Laboratory for Agriculture Expert Systems, ARC,
MOLAR. Egypt.
Development Environment
-Researches, working papers, and banks studies.
Mathematical
Models
-Central Bank Publications and Policies.
Document
-Banks reports and publications.
Analysis
-References and books.
Classified
-Periodicals.
Knowledge Domain
Acquisition Concepts
Domain Knowledge
Experts Engineer
most fundamental constituent of a knowledge base. By
domain ontology, we mean a full declaration of
concepts, relations between concepts, and relations
between properties. This part of domain ontology
represents the lower layer of domain knowledge.
Domain models embodies the upper layer, and
represent knowledge of what are the domain relations
required to fulfill a specific function within the domain
of application.
To acquire the domain ontology, we prepared two
editors: Concepts editor, and Relations editor. The
concepts editor is used to declare domain concepts,
along with their properties, and properties facets. The
relations editor, uses the concepts declarations as input,
and facilitates defining relations between concepts, and
relations between properties. Currently we have five
distinct representations of relations: Rules, Tables,
Mathematical functions, Constraints, and Object
hierarchies. Each of these representations has its own
internal structure that suits different kinds of domain
relations. The selection of the appropriate
representation of a specific domain relation is up to
knowledge engineer, according to some criteria that
characterizes each representation. It is noteworthy that
the proposed architecture is not closed to the
aforementioned knowledge representations; the
knowledge engineer is free to add new knowledge
representations, and inference mechanisms that work

4.2. Knowledge Acquisition
There are two main methods have been applied to
acquire the knowledge of credit evaluation systems in
banking with effectiveness, efficiency and correctness,
they are direct and indirect methods. Indirect methods
are used in order to obtain information that can not be
easily expressed directly. Document analysis and
decision analysis are used to classify entities within a
domain. These methods attempt to determine how the
expert makes their decisions.
Document analysis involves gathering information
from existing documentation. This process has been
achieved through interaction with a human expert to
confirm or add to this information. The knowledge
engineer who is one of the authors of this research help
in eliciting the knowledge from deferent sources such
as: Periodicals, References and books, Banks reports
and publications, Central Bank Publications and
Policies, and Researches, working papers, and banks
studies. That knowledge contains mathematical and
statistical treatment of data for correlation analysis,
trend analysis, hypothesis testing, and predictive
analysis. Direct methods or interaction with the domain
expert involve directly questioning a domain expert on
how they do their job; the domain expert has to be
reasonably articulate and willing to share information.
The knowledge has been verified with other senior
experts, and then some modification and enhancement
have been done to reach the verified system.
4.2.1 Document analysis. According to Basel [1],
Hashad [13], and others [2,3,4,5] credit ratings assess
the credit worthiness of an individual, corporation, or
even a country. Credit ratings are calculated from
financial history and current assets and liabilities. From
final accounts, market trends, published statistical
reports. Six criteria taken on to the consideration: the
feasibility study, the client study analysis, the general
circumstances analysis, the financial analysis, the
credit study analysis, and the collaterals.
(1) The Feasibility Study, which consists of economic,
financial, technical, marketing, social and environment
feasibility. In addition, every one from them has many
pointers and questions.
(2) The Client Study Analysis, which contains the
client five Cs Merit Creditworthiness (characters,
capacity, circumstances, capital, and collateral).
(3) The General Circumstances Analysis, which has
two lines international and national. The global
contains inflation and stagnancy, the quality and
quantity protection policy and economics
agglomerates. The national situation has Financial and
Fiscal Policies, credit policies, rate of exchange policy,
public finance policy and government pricing policy.
(4) The Financial Analysis, which examine the
financials of the company, financial analysis for short
term loans, financial analysis for long and medium
term loans. The short term analyzes client current
centre, the general current centre, the activity cycle and
sources of working capital structure. The long and
medium term analyzes the financial structure, the
earning power, the market trends and contingent and
expected obligations.
(5) Credit Study Analysis, which has the personal
interviews and the field visits and inquiring about the
client performance with the bank and other Banks.
(6) The Collaterals: The last one is the collaterals, it
were classified to eight kinds the Bank guarantee, real
Estate, deposit account, promissory notes, holding
company guarantee, storage of the product, personal
guarantee and over Draft Guarantee.
4.2.2 Knowledge Elicitation from the Experts.
Analyzing and filtering the previous criteria's with the
experts, then we reached the following five
conclusions criteria taken on to the consideration in the
analysis that covering all the decision-making aspects
either qualitative or quantitative and it has obvious sign
in credit process. It contains the first and second stages
of analysis criteria's with new arrangements suitable
with the last classification: the knowledge elicitation
from expert provide new credit ratings: Economic
Feasibility Study, Financial Feasibility Study,
Technical Feasibility Study, Marketing Feasibility
Study, and Collaterals.
4.2.3 Validating and Verifying the Knowledge from
the domain Experts. The extracted and elicited
knowledge have been validated, verified, and updated
with the domain experts and they also provided other
knowledge's to complete it, the experts' contribution
appeared in different aspects of the system.
4.3. Knowledge Base Components
The knowledge base for Evaluating and Supporting
Credit Decisions on the Banking sector Tool
(ESESCDB) consists of five main components, namely
Economic Feasibility Study, Financial Feasibility
Study, Technical Feasibility Study, Marketing
Feasibility Study, and Collaterals as depicted in figure
2. In the credit, ratings, which are used in the system,
one hundred points are suggested as a total weight, and
then every part of the five components has default
amount of points, which have been discussed with the
experts. The economic feasibility study has fifteen
points. Each one of these ratings and its contents are
divided its points in the suitable distribution. Financial
Feasibility Study has thirty points. Technical
Feasibility Study has twenty points. Marketing
Feasibility Study has twenty points. Collaterals have
fifteen. In those five components there are some
critical factors that may affect the decision making
process in all the parts of the system, the project will
be rejecting as soon as it happened. There are many
important factors those affecting the decision to give
recommendations to grant the credit, or reduce it, or
recommends reviewing the credit application before
granting, and lastly rejects the credit application if it
did not meet the criteria of evaluation, and there are
less important factors in the system, in this way we
used different approaches to reach the same result. The
following subsections describe each component.
Evaluation of
Financial
feasibility
Evaluation study Evaluation
of Economic of Technical
feasibility feasibility
study study
Credit
Ratings and
Viability
Evaluation of
Evaluation of
marketing
the collaterals
feasibility
study
Figure 2: Knowledge Base Components
The economic feasibility study is categorized into
three major groups: global economic environment,
national economic and political situation and social
impact. Each group is evaluated through examining the
related factors. For example in the social impact, there
are towlines of evaluation the first are the sector
situation (micro) and the social impact (economic
internal rate of return). In the sector situation (micro)
the evaluation is examined through the laws of the
country if it allows for the establishment of the project
and the investment climate suitable for the project. The
social impact (economic internal rate of return), here
the assessment consists of the EIRR ratio in
comparison with the cost of capital. This part is
achieved throughout forty questions; each one has
different weight according to the degree of it's effect of
the evaluation.
Financial Feasibility Study has two major groups
have identified, quantitative evaluation and qualitative
evaluation. Each one of these groups has special
contents. The quantitative evaluation contents are: cash
flow, financial analysis, FIRR, NPV, sensitivity
analysis, break-even analysis, and profit trends with
time series. The qualitative evaluation consists of client
assessment, customer relation ship with the bank and
other banks, and other special factors affecting the
project.
Technical Feasibility Study is categorized in six
major groups – the project specifications, costing,
production capacity, the technical expenditure &
training, availability of after sale service, production
management, and environment.
Marketing Feasibility Study is categorized in four
major groups: supply & demand and gap analysis,
pricing, quality of the product, swot analysis strength
& weakness (internal environment of the company),
opportunities & threats (external environment of the
company), and marketing policy. Each group is
evaluated a number of factors.
Collaterals is categorized in eight major groups-
bank guarantee, deposit account, real estate,
promissory notes, holding company guarantee, storage
of the product, personal guarantee, over draft
guarantee.
There are some critical factors that may affecting
the decision making process in all the parts of the
system, the project will be rejecting as soon as it
happened. On the other hand there are many important
that affecting the system. By using those factors we
want to sustain that the project has a sensitivity
analysis and it is conducted under three scenarios.
Earnings power, it is very important factor as it
represent the first defense line for the project.
Assessment of the client, in this assesses explaining the
client worthiness which is very important factor in
credit evaluation process. The less important factors in
the system have been identified to allow the system to
use different approaches to reach the same results.
4.4 Mathematical Model Components
A library of mathematical models has been
integrated with the system to select the appropriate
model during the run time according to each situation.
The library contains all modules that necessary to
support the expert system with the result value of each
module. Some of those mathematical models have
different methods to achieve the goal according to each
situation and available data, and other using simple
way. For instance to evaluate the credit there are many
factors should be considered such as cash flows, that
should be evaluated by considering all of the cash
inflows and out flows induced by investment decision
in question.
4.5 Explanation Knowledge Base Components
At the end of consultation session the end user can
ask “How” the system reaches the generated solution.
Expert system shells provide this type of explanation
as tracing the line of reasoning; the end user cannot
understand this explanation. Most system justify to the
user how it reached this solution by displaying the
suitable text that links the findings with the conclusion.
If more than one solution path is generated from the
given finding the system will display all those paths
with their explanation text. Consequently there is a
need to generate a special knowledge representation
schema and problem solving method to generate the
explanation that acquired from the domain expert.
There are two solution approaches that can satisfy
the above specifications. The first is to keep the history
of the session in a temporary structure in the memory
or database. This session history used to know how the
path followed through to reach the specified
conclusion, and then construct the suitable explanation
during the consultation session. The second alternative
is to use the meta knowledge to construct the
explanation when the user asks “how-solution” of a
conclusion while there is no overhead in running
procedures during the consultation time to construct
this explanation.
The second alternative uses the meta knowledge
that is constructed only one time as described in the
previous section. But in the first alternative we keep
the session history during the consultation time, even if
the user doesn’t want any explanation at all. The
second alternative is more suitable to construct the
needed explanation because the first one has more
overhead to construct the explanation while running
the expert system. In addition, we can’t generate this
kind of explanation from the expert system because it
needs deep knowledge to justify the conclusion result
that does not exist in the knowledge base. So when
building the ‘How Solution’ explanation we need to
know all conclusions results or derived values in each
inference step. The derived values will be used in the
intermediate result in the inference steps. But the final
result (the final conclusion) exists only in the last
inference step. The meta knowledge that already
captured from the expert during the knowledge
acquisition process for each conclusion pass such as
inference name, inference order, inference role,
relation, rule fired, generated text explanation, and
expert explanation will be used to construct the
explanation.
There is a module of “How Solution” explanation to
determine the exact explanation for each specific case.
The result of this module is a justification of why the
system reached that particular conclusion. To
accomplish this task the how-solution module starts
with the user-selected conclusion and collects all rules
that contain this particular conclusion in the current
inference step and the related derived values in all
previous inferences steps. The second step is to
compare the premises in each rule with the finding in
the system, to get the rules that their premises have
matched with the system findings. This step is very
necessary to reject other rules that are not related to
this particular conclusion. We consider those matched
rules and get the explanation attached with them, and
store the derived values in the premises in each rule (if
any) to be used in the previous inference step at the
next loop execution to get the rules that are related to
the user-selected conclusion until reaching the first
inference step.
5. Evaluation
In order to demonstrate the applicability of the
presented architecture, although the system has been
tested using a lot of hypothetical cases provided from
the domain experts, the expert system was applied in
two real cases to measure the impact of using the
system to evaluating and supporting credit decision on
the banking sector. The methodology followed to
achieve this objective was applied: 1) Determine two
different banks that have real cases they apply a study
in addition to the decision in each bank. 2) Collect the
information needed to run the proposed system for
each case (some information may not be available).
Note that in this step the needed information to run the
system is collected from the bank, but not the result of
the study arrived at by each bank. This is to make sure
that, there is no bias in advance or effect of the existing
result on the tests that will be made by the proposed
system. 3) Run the system for each case by providing
the information to the system, in order to get the result
for each case and document in the form of a report. 4)
Show the study result that applied in each bank. 5)
Compare the result for each case with the result of the
system. In first case the decision which was taken by
the bank compatible with the proposed expert system.
Although the system agreed with traditional system
but give justifications for it is recommendation consist
of the negative points that must be taken into
consideration. The system in the second case gives the
decision that is compatible with the bank decision both
of them give decision granting credit. The system
support the bank decision by calculated different
equations in financial analysis helps in measuring the
quantitative data then helps in assessing the credit
decision process. The system provides the explanation
to support the conclusion that reached. One important
 issue of using the system that it reduce the time for
evaluating the credit because it provide to the user with
the required information for each case, then the user
can focus only for those required information to flow
logical system which will reduce the risk of over due
debts rather than gathering a lot of information about
the credit under investigation without affecting the real
decision, also the system provide a conclusion even if
some data missed.
6. Conclusion
The major contribution of this research is to propose
an expert system for evaluating and supporting credit
decisions on the banking sector (ESESCDB). This ES
is designed not only to justify the chosen decision, but
also to help the bank consultants to feedback their
experience and to make recommendations to the
system. In addition, it allows the user to change the
values of the system parameters. In this way, it
provides an efficient means to run the consultation
using a different set of inputs. The system can help the
human experts in explaining why a particular decision
is made. It can evaluate the credit-worthiness of
applicant companies or individuals, with recommend
for a credit line be accepted, rejected, reduced or
revised. The system aids a credit officer in the risk
assessment and completion of a loan package. It can
help in training new employees, to improve
productivity, to conduct marketing research, and any
number of other functions. However, they also offer
considerable advantages to strengthening the analytical
and Communication skills plus improving research
skills of university students who attempt to design such
systems.
Acknowledge
The authors would like to acknowledge the domain
experts team from central bank of Sudan, development
export bank, and Sudanese Banks Association. Thanks
are also due to the expert Dr. Bashier Omer Faddllalh
economist advisor of the Islamic development bank in
Jeddah.
7. References
[1] Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, "Credit
Ratings and Complementary Sources of Credit Quality
Information." No 3, August, 2000.
[2] Nikola A Tarashev, "An empirical evaluation of
structural credit risk models" Bank for International
Settlements- Basel, Switzerland -July 2005. BIS Working
Papers -No 179
View publication stats
[3] Oh, K. J., & Kim, T. Y., "Financial market monitoring
by case-based reasoning". Expert Systems with Applications,
2007, 32(3), 789–800.
[4] Kumra, R., Stein, R. M., & Assersohn, I., "Assessing
knowledge based approach to commercial loan
underwriting". Expert Systems with Applications, 2006,
30(3), 507–518.
[5] Linda A, Gayle D, Anthony S., "Issues in the credit
risk modeling of retail markets" in Journal of Banking &
Finance, Volume 28, Issue 4, April 2004, Pages 727-752
[6] Rada, R., "Expert systems and evolutionary computing
for financial investing: A review." Expert Systems with
Applications, 34 (2008).
[7] Luke Hodgkin son, Ellen Walker, "An Expert System
For Credit Evaluation And Explanation" Hiram College,
POB 67, Hiram, OH 44 - 2003
[8] Mahmoud M., El-Araby K., Rafea, A., "LIMEX: An
Integrated Expert System for Lime Crop Management." 2nd
IFAC/IFIP/EnrAgEng workshop on Artificial Intelligence in
Agriculture, 29 May - 1 June, 1995, The Netherlands.
[9] Wagner W.P. and Otto J., Chung Q.B., "Knowledge
acquisition for expert systems in accounting and financial
problem domains" Department of Decision and Information
Technologies, Villanova University, Villanova, PA 19085
USA February 2002.
[10] Rafea, A., Edree, S., El-Azhari, S., Mahmoud M., "A
Development Methodology for Agricultural Expert Systems
Based on KADS", Proceedings of the Second World
Congress on Expert Systems, January 1994.
[11] NASA, CLIPS v. 6.2 Lyndon B. Johnson Space
Center, Information System Directorate, Software
Technology Branch, Houston, Tex., 2002
[12] Schreiber, G.; Wielinga, B. J.; Akkermans, H.; de
Velde, W. V.; and Anjewierden, A., "CML: The
CommonKADS conceptual modeling language." In
Proceedings of 8th European Knowledge Acquisition
Workshop (EKAW), 1–25. 1994.
[13] Hashad, Nabil "Your Gide to Banking Credit Resk"
BASEL part 2, 1997.