Advertisement

Meta-relation and ontology closure in Conceptual Structure Theory

  • Philip H. P. NguyenEmail author
  • Ken Kaneiwa
  • Dan R. Corbett
  • Minh-Quang Nguyen
Article

Abstract

This paper presents an enhanced ontology formalization, combining previous work in Conceptual Structure Theory and Order-Sorted Logic. Most existing ontology formalisms place greater importance on concept types, but in this paper we focus on relation types, which are in essence predicates on concept types. We formalize the notion of ‘predicate of predicates’ as meta-relation type and introduce the new hierarchy of meta-relation types as part of the ontology definition. The new notion of closure of a relation or meta-relation type is presented as a means to complete that relation or meta-relation type by transferring extra arguments and properties from other related types. The end result is an expanded ontology, called the closure of the original ontology, on which automated inference could be more easily performed. Our proposal could be viewed as a novel and improved ontology formalization within Conceptual Structure Theory and a contribution to knowledge representation and formal reasoning (e.g., to build a query-answering system for legal knowledge).

Keywords

Ontology formalization Knowledge representation Automated reasoning Conceptual Structure Theory Order-Sorted Logic Type theory Concept type Relation type Meta-relation type Legal reasoning 

References

  1. Bechhofer S et al (2004) OWL Web Ontology Language Reference Feb 2004, http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/
  2. Beierle C et al (1992) An order-sorted logic for knowledge representation systems. Artif Intell 55:149–191zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Breuker J, Elhag L, Petkov E, Winkels R (2002) Ontologies for legal information serving and knowledge management. In: Bench-Capon T et al (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems (Jurix 2002). IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 73–82Google Scholar
  4. Chen W, Kifer M, Warren D (1993) HiLog: a foundation for higher-order logic programming. J Log Program 15(3):187–230zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. Codd EF (1970) A relational model of data for large shared data banks. Commun ACM 13(6):377–387zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohn AG (1989) Taxonomic reasoning with many sorted logics. Artif Intell Rev 3:89–128Google Scholar
  7. Corbett D (2003) Reasoning and unification over conceptual graphs. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Dillion T, Chang E, Hadzic M, Wongthongtham P (2008) Differentiating conceptual modelling from data modelling, knowledge modelling and ontology modelling and a notation for ontology modelling, 5th Asia-Pacific conference on conceptual modelling, Wollongong, Australia, Jan 2008Google Scholar
  9. Greiner R, Darken C, Santoso N (2001) Efficient reasoning. ACM Comput Surv 33(1):1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ISO/IEC International Standard (2007) Information technology—common logic (CL): a framework for a family of logic-based languages, ISO/IEC 24707:2007(E), Oct 2007Google Scholar
  11. Kaneiwa K (2001) An order-sorted logic with predicate hierarchy, eventuality and implicit negation, PhD thesis, Japan Advanced Inst. of Science and Technology, 2001Google Scholar
  12. Kaneiwa K (2004) Order-sorted logic programming with predicate hierarchy. Artif Intell 158(2):155–188zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Kaneiwa K, Tojo S (1999) Event, property and hierarchy in order-sorted logic. Proceedings of international conference on logic programming, Las Cruces, USA, pp 94–108Google Scholar
  14. Kaneiwa K, Iwazume M, Fukuda K (2007) An upper ontology for event classifications and relations, 20th Australian joint conference on artificial intelligence, Dec 2007, Gold Coast, Australia, LNCS, Vol 4830, pp 394–403Google Scholar
  15. Nguyen P, Corbett D (2006a) A basic mathematical framework for conceptual graphs. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 18(2):261–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nguyen P, Corbett D (2006b) Building corporate knowledge through ontology integration. Pacific Rim Knowledge Acquisition Workshop (PKAW-06), 08-2006, Guilin, China, LNAI 4303, pp 223–229Google Scholar
  17. Nguyen P, Corbett D (2007) A formalization of subjective and objective time ontologies. 3rd Australasian ontology workshop (AOW-07), Dec 2007, Gold Coast, Australia, CRPIT, Vol 85, pp 45–54Google Scholar
  18. Nguyen P, Kaneiwa K, Corbett D, Nguyen MQ (2008) An ontology formalization of relation type hierarchy in conceptual structure theory. 21st Australasian conference on AI, Auckland, NZ, Dec 2008, LNAI 5360, pp 79–85Google Scholar
  19. Nitta K et al (1995) New HELIC-II: A software tool for legal reasoning. 5th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, College Park, MD, ACM Press, pp 287–296Google Scholar
  20. Smith P (2003) An introduction to formal logic. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Smith B et al (2005) Relations in biomedical ontologies. Genome Biol 6:46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sowa J (1984) Conceptual structures—information processing in mind and machine. Addison-Wesley, ReadingzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Sowa J (2000) Knowledge representation: logical, philosophical, and computational foundations. Brooks Cole Publishing Co, Pacific GroveGoogle Scholar
  24. Stumme G (2002) Using ontologies and formal concept analysis for organizing business knowledge. In: Becke J, Knackstedt R (eds) Wissensmanagement mit Referenzmodellen—Konzepte für die Anwendungssystem und Organisationsgestaltung. Physica, Heidelberg, pp 163–174Google Scholar
  25. Wille R (1982) Restructuring lattice theory: an approach based on hierarchies of concepts. In: Rival I (ed) Ordered sets. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  26. World Wide Web Consortium (2004) OWL web ontology language—use cases and requirements, 2004, http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip H. P. Nguyen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ken Kaneiwa
    • 2
  • Dan R. Corbett
    • 3
  • Minh-Quang Nguyen
    • 4
  1. 1.Justice Technology Services, Department of Justice, Government of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.National Institute of Information and Communications TechnologySeika, SorakuJapan
  3. 3.Schafer CorporationArlingtonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Quebec at MontrealMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations