Conceptual Graphs for Semantic Web Applications

  • Rose Dieng-Kuntz
  • Olivier Corby
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3596)


In this paper, we aim at showing the advantages of Conceptual Graph formalism for the Semantic Web through several real-world applications in the framework of Corporate Semantic Webs. We describe the RDF(S)-dedicated semantic search engine, CORESE, based on a correspondence between RDF(S) and Conceptual Graphs, and we illustrate the interest of Conceptual Graphs through the analysis of several real-world applications based on CORESE.


Resource Description Framework Query Language Semantic Annotation Conceptual Graph Concept Type 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Al-Hulou, R., Corby, O., Dieng-Kuntz, R., Euzenat, J., Medina Ramirez, C., Napoli, A., Troncy, R.: Three knowledge representation formalisms for content-based manipulation of documents. In: KR 2002 Workshop on Formal Ontology, Knowledge Representation and Intelligent Systems for the World Wide Web, Toulouse, France, April 2002,Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bach, T.-L., Dieng-Kuntz, R., Gandon, F.: On Ontology Matching Problems (for building a corporate Semantic Web in a multi-communities organization). In: ICEIS 2004, Porto (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baget, J.-F., Mugnier, M.-L.: Extensions of Simple Conceptual Graphs: The Complexity of Rules and Constraints. JAIR 16, 425–465 (2002)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berners-Lee, T.: Semantic Web Road Map (September 1998),
  5. 5.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The Semantic Web. Scientific American (May 2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berners-Lee, T., Miller, E.: The Semantic Web lifts off. ERCIM News No. 51 (October 2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Broekstra, J., Kampman, A., van Harmelen, F.: Sesame: A Generic Architecture for Storing and Querying RDF and RDF Schema. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, pp. 54–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cao, T.-D., Dieng-Kuntz, R., Fiès, B.: An Ontology-Guided Annotation System For Technology Monitoring. In: IADIS Int. Conf. WWW/Internet 2004, Madrid (October 2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chein, M., Genest, D.: CGs Applications: Where are we 7 years after the first ICCS. In: Ganter, B., Mineau, G.W. (eds.) ICCS 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1867, pp. 127–139. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chein, M., Mugnier, M.-L.: Conceptual graphs: fundamental notions. RIA 6(4), 365–406 (1992)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Corby, O., Dieng, R., Hébert, C.: A Conceptual Graph Model for W3C Resource Description Framework. In: Ganter, B., Mineau, G.W. (eds.) ICCS 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1867, pp. 468–482. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Corby, O., Dieng-Kuntz, R., Faron-Zucker, C.: Querying the Semantic Web with the CORESE Search Engine. In: ECAI 2004, Valencia, August 2004, pp. 705–709. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Corby, O., Faron, C.: CORESE: A Corporate Semantic Web Engine. In: WWW 2002 Workshop on Real World RDF and Semantic Web Appl., Hawaii, USA (May 2002),
  14. 14.
    Dean, M., Schreiber, G. (eds.): OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. W3C Recommendation, February 10 (2004),
  15. 15.
    Delteil, A., Faron, C., Dieng, R.: Learning Ontologies from RDF Annotations. In: Proc. of IJCAI 2001 Workshop on Ontology Learning, Seattle, USA (August 2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Delteil, A., Faron, C., Dieng, R.: Extensions of RDFS Based on the Conceptual Graph Model. In: Delugach, H.S., Stumme, G. (eds.) ICCS 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2120, pp. 275–289. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dieng-Kuntz, R.: Corporate Semantic Webs. To appear in: Schwartz, D. (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Knowledge Management. Idea Publishing (July 2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dieng, R., Hug, S.: MULTIKAT, a Tool for Comparing Knowledge from Multiple Experts. In: Mugnier, M.-L., Chein, M. (eds.) ICCS 1998. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1453, p. 139. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dieng, R., Hug, S.: Comparison of personal ontologies represented through conceptual graphs. In: Proc. of ECAI 1998, Brighton, UK, pp. 341–345. Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dieng-Kuntz, R., Minier, D., Corby, F., Ruzicka, M., Corby, O., Alamarguy, L., Luong, P.-H.: Medical Ontology and Virtual Staff for a Health Network. In: Motta, E., Shadbolt, N.R., Stutt, A., Gibbins, N. (eds.) EKAW 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3257, pp. 187–202. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Eberhart, A.: Automatic Generation of Java/SQL Based Inference Engines from RDF Schema and RuleML. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, pp. 102–116. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gandon, F., Berthelot, L., Dieng-Kuntz, R.: A Multi-Agent Platform for a Corporate Semantic Web. In: AAMAS 2002, Bologna, Italy, July 15-19, pp. 1025–1032 (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gandon, F., Dieng-Kuntz, R., Corby, O., Giboin, A.: Semantic Web and Multi-Agents Approach to Corporate Memory Management. In: Proc. of the 17th IFIP World Computer Congress IIP Track, Montréal, Canada, August 25-30, pp. 103–115 (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gerbé, O., Mineau, G.W.: The CG Formalism as an Ontolingua for Web-Oriented Representation Languages. In: ICCS 2002, Borovetz, July 2002, pp. 205–219. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Golebiowska, J., Dieng, R., Corby, O., Mousseau, D.: Building and Exploiting Ontologies for an Automobile Project Memory. In: K-CAP, Victoria, October 2001, pp. 52–59 (2001)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Guarino, N., Masolo, C., Vetere, G.: Ontoseek: Content-based access to the Web. IEEE Intelligent Systems 14(3), 70–80 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Karvounarakis, G., Alexaki, S., Christophides, V., Plexousakis, D., Scholl, M.: RQL: a declarative query language for RDF. In: Proc. of WWW 2002, Honolulu, pp. 592–603 (2002)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Khelif, K., Dieng-Kuntz, R.: Ontology-Based Semantic Annotations for Biochip Domain. In: Motta, E., Shadbolt, N.R., Stutt, A., Gibbins, N. (eds.) EKAW 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3257, pp. 483–484. Springer, Heidelberg (2004), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lassila, O., Swick, R.R.: Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification. W3C Recomm., February 22 (1999),
  30. 30.
    Maclean, A., Young, R., Bellotti, V., Moran, T.: Questions, Options, and Criteria: Elements of a Design Rationale for User Interfaces. IJHCI 6(3/4), 201–250 (1991)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Martin, P.: CGKAT: A Knowledge Acquisition and Retrieval Tool Using Structured Documents and Ontologies. In: Delugach, H.S., Keeler, M.A., Searle, L., Lukose, D., Sowa, J.F. (eds.) ICCS 1997. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1257, pp. 581–584. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Martin, P., Eklund, P.: Knowledge Retrieval and the World Wide Web. IEEE Intelligent Systems 15(3), 18–25 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    McGuinness, D.L., van Harmelen, F. (eds.): OWL Web Ontology Language 57. Overview, W3C Recommendation, February 10 (2004),
  34. 34.
    Medina Ramirez, R.C., Dieng-Kuntz, R., Corby, O.: Querying a heterogeneous corporate semantic web: a translation approach. In: Proc. of the EKAW 2002 Workshop on KM through Corporate Semantic Webs, Sigüenza, Spain (October 2002)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Miller, L., Seaborne, A., Reggiori, A.: Three Implementations of SquishQL, a Simple RDF Query Language. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, pp. 423–435. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mineau, G.W.: A First Step toward the Knowledge Web: Interoperability Issues among Conceptual Graph Based Software Agents. In: Priss, U., Corbett, D.R., Angelova, G. (eds.) ICCS 2002, Part I. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2393, pp. 250–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mugnier, M.-L.: Knowledge Representation and Reasonings Based on Graph Homomorphism. In: Ganter, B., Mineau, G.W. (eds.) ICCS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1867, pp. 172–192. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL Query Language for RDF, W3C Working Draft, February 17 (2005),
  39. 39.
    Ribière, M., Dieng-Kuntz, R.: A Viewpoint Model for Cooperative Building of an Ontology. In: Priss, U., Corbett, D.R., Angelova, G. (eds.) ICCS 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2393, pp. 220–234. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ruzicka, M., Dieng-Kuntz, R., Minier, D.: Virtual Staff - Software Tool for Cooperative Work in a Health Care Network INRIA Research Report RR-5390 (November 2004)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Salvat, E.: Theorem Proving Using Graph Operations in the Conceptual Graph Formalism. In: Proc. of ECAI 1998, Brighton, UK, pp. 356–360 (1998)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Salvat, É., Mugnier, M.-L.: Sound and Complete Forward and Backward Chaining of Graph Rules. In: Eklund, P., Mann, G.A., Ellis, G. (eds.) ICCS 1996. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1115, pp. 248–262. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sintek, M., Decker, S.: Triple: A Query, Inference and Transformation Language for the Semantic Web. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, pp. 364–378. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Southey, F., Linders, J.G.: Notio - A Java API for developing CG tools. In: Tepfenhart, W.M. (ed.) ICCS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1640. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sowa, J.: Conceptual Graphs: Information Processing in Mind and Machine. Addison Wesley, Reading (1984)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Weed, L.D.: The Problem Oriented Record as a Basic Tool in Medical Education, Patient Care and Clinical Research. Ann. Clin. Res. 3(3), 131–134 (1971)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wielemaker, J., Schreiber, G., Wielinga, B.: Prolog-Based Infrastructure for RDF: Scalability and Performance. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 644–658. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zhong, J., Zhu, H., Li, J., Yu, Y.: Conceptual Graph Matching for Semantic Search. In: Priss, U., Corbett, D.R., Angelova, G. (eds.) ICCS 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2393, pp. 92–106. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rose Dieng-Kuntz
    • 1
  • Olivier Corby
    • 1
  1. 1.INRIA Sophia-Antipolis, ACACIA ProjectSophia-Antipolis CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations