Comparing Representations of Geographic Knowledge Expressed as Conceptual Graphs

  • Athanasios Karalopoulos
  • Margarita Kokla
  • Marinos Kavouras
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3799)


Conceptual Graphs are a very powerful knowledge and meaning representation formalism grounded on deep philosophical, linguistic and object oriented principles [1], [2]. Concerning geographic knowledge representation and matching, the study and analysis of geographic concept definitions plays an important role in deriving systematic knowledge about concepts and comparing geographic categories in order to identify similarities and heterogeneities [4]. Based on the proposed algorithm for the representation of geographic knowledge using conceptual graphs, we also present a method that takes into consideration the special structure of conceptual graphs and produces an output that shows how much similar two geographic concepts are and hence which concept is semantically closer to another. For producing the conceptual graph representation of any geographic concept definition we follow two steps, tagging and parsing, while for measuring the similarity between two geographic ontologies we apply proper modifications to the Dice coefficient that is mainly used for comparing binary structures.


Semantic Relation Attribute Section Dice Coefficient Prepositional Phrase Conceptual Graph 
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.
    Sowa, J.: Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind and Machine. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1984)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sowa, J.: Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical and Computational Foundations. Brooks Cole Publishing Co. (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tepfenhart, W., Cyre, W.: Conceptual Structures: Standards and Practices. In: 7th Intl. Conf. Conceptual Structures. Springer, Blacksburg (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kavouras, M., Kokla, M., Tomai, E.: Determination, Visualization and Interpretation of Semantic Similarity among Geographic Ontologies. In: Gould, M., Laurini, R., Coulondre, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th AGILE Annual Conference on Geographic Information Science, pp. 51–56. Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires, Romandes (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kuhn, W.: Modeling the Semantic of Geographic Categories through Conceptual Integration. In: Egenhofer, D., Mark, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the Second International Conference GIScience, pp. 108–118. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kokla, M., Kavouras, M.: Extracting Latent Semantic Relations from Definitions to Disambiguate Geographic Ontologies. In: Zavala, G. (ed.) GIScience 2002 Abstracts. University of California Regents, pp. 87–90 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Conceptual Graph Standard. NCITS.T2 Committee on Information Interchange and Interpretation (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ellis, G., Lehmann, F.: Exploiting the Induced Order on Type-Labeled Graphs for fast Knowledge Retrieval. In: Tepfenhart, W., Dick, J., Sowa, J. (eds.) Conceptual Structures: Current Practices. LNCS (LNAI). Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huibers, T., Ounis, I., Chevallet, J.: Conceptual Graph Aboutness. In: Ekland, P., Ellis, G., Mann, G. (eds.) Conceptual Structures: Knowledge Representation as Interlingua. LNCS (LNAI). Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rasmussen, E.: Clustering Algorithms. In: Frakes, W., Baeza-Yates, R. (eds.) Information Retrieval: Data Structures and Algorithms. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1992)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    WordNet 2. A Lexical Database for the English Language. Cognitive Science Laboratory, Princeton UniversityGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alshawi, H.: Analysing the Dictionary Definitions. In: Boguraev, B., Briscoe, T. (eds.) Computational Lexicography for Natural Language Processing, pp. 153–170. Longman Group UK Limited (1989)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Klavans, J., Chodorow, S., Wacholder, N.: From Dictionary to Knowledge Base via Taxonomy. In: Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference of the UW Centre for the New OED: Electronic Test Research, pp. 110–132 (1990)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Montemagni, S., Vanderwende, L.: Structural Patterns vs. String Patterns for Extracting Semantic Information from Dictionaries. In: Proceedings of the 14th COLING, pp. 546–552 (1992)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jensen, K., Binot, J.: Disambiguating prepositional phrase attachments by using on-line dictionary definitions. Computational Linguistics 13(3-4), 251–260 (1987)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ravin, Y.: Disambiguating and Interpreting Verb Definitions. In: Jensen, K., Heidorn, E., Richardson, D. (eds.) Natural Language Processing: The PLNLP Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1993)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vanderwende, L.: The Analysis of Noun Sentences using Semantic Information Extracted from on-line Dictionaries. PhD Thesis, Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. Georgetown University, Washington D.C. (1995)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Karalopoulos, A., Kokla, M., Kavouras, M.: Geographic Knowledge Representation Using Conceptual Graphs. In: 7th AGILE Conference on Geographic Information Science, Crete, Greece (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Athanasios Karalopoulos
    • 1
  • Margarita Kokla
    • 1
  • Marinos Kavouras
    • 1
  1. 1.National Technical University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations