Ontology with Likeliness and Typicality of Objects in Concepts

  • Ching-man Au Yeung
  • Ho-fung Leung
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4215)

Abstract

Ontologies play an indispensable role in the Semantic Web by specifying the definitions of concepts and individual objects. However, most of the existing methods for constructing ontologies can only specify concepts as crisp sets. However, we cannot avoid encountering concepts that are without clear boundaries, or even vague in meanings. Therefore, existing ontology models are unable to cope with many real cases effectively. With respect to a certain category, certain objects are considered as more representative or typical. Cognitive psychologists explain this by the prototype theory of concepts. This notion should also be taken into account to improve conceptual modeling. While there has been different research attempting to handle vague concepts with fuzzy set theory, formal methods for measuring typicality of objects are still insufficient. We propose a cognitive model of concepts for ontologies, which handles both likeliness (fuzzy membership grade) and typicality of individuals. We also discuss the nature and differences between likeliness and typicality. This model not only enhances the effectiveness of conceptual modeling, but also brings the results of reasoning closer to human thinking. We believe that this research is beneficial to future research on ontological engineering in the Semantic Web.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Armstrong, S.L., Gleitman, L.R., Gleitman, H.: What some concepts might not be. Cognition 13(3), 263–308 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The semantic web. Sci. Am. 284(5), 34–43 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cross, V.: Uncertainty in the automation of ontology matching. In: 4th International Symposium on Uncertainty Modelling and Analysis (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cross, V., Voss, C.R.: Fuzzy ontologies for multilingual document exploitation. In: Proceedings of the 1999 Conference of NAFIPS, pp. 392–397 (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ding, Y., Foo, S.: Ontology research and development part 1 – a review of ontology generation. Journal of Information Science 28(2) (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ding, Y., Foo, S.: Research and development: Part 2 – a review of ontology mapping and evolving. Journal of Information Science 28(4) (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dubois, D., Prade, H., Rossazza, J.P.: Vagueness, typicality, and uncertainty in class hierarchies. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 6, 167–183 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baader, F., et al. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Galotti, K.M.: Cognitive Psychology In and Out of the Laboratory, 3rd edn. Wadsworth, Belmont (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gómez-Pérez, A., Manzano-Macho, D.: An overview of methods and tools for ontology learning from texts. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 19(3), 187–212 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grossi, D., Dignum, F., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Contextual taxonomies. In: Proceedings of Fifth Internationanal Workshop on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grossi, D., Dignum, F., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Context in categorization. In: Workshop on Context Representation and Reasoning (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gruber, T.R.: A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 5(2), 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guarino, N.: Formal ontology and information system. In: Proceedings of the Formal Ontology and Information System (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guha, R., McCool, R., Miller, E.: Semantic search. In: WWW 2003: Proceedings of the 12th int. conf. on World Wide Web, pp. 700–709 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Helsper, E.M., van der Gaag, L.C., Feelders, A.J., Loeffen, W.L.A., Geenen, P.L., Elbers, A.R.W.: Bringing order into bayesian-network construction. In: Proceedings of Third International Conference on Knowledge Capture (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hölldobler, S., Dinh Khang, T., Störr, H.-P.: A fuzzy description logic with hedges as concept modifiers. In: IPMU (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kamp, H., Partee, B.: Prototype theory and compositionality. Cognition 57, 129–191 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Koller, D., Levy, A., Pfeffer, A.: P-classic: A tractable probabilistic description logic. In: Proceedings of the 14th National Conference on AI, pp. 390–397 (1997)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    McGuinness, D.L., van Harmelen, F.: OWL web ontology language overview (2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
  21. 21.
    Parry, D.: A fuzzy ontology for medical document retrieval. In: CRPIT, pp. 121–126 (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rocha, C., Schwabe, D., de Aragao, M.: A hybrid approach for searching in the semantic web. In: WWW 2004, pp. 374–383 (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rosch, E.H.: On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In: More, T.E. (ed.) Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language. Academic Press, New York (1973)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rosch, E.H.: Cognitive represerntations of semantic categories. Journal of Exp. Psy. 104, 192–233 (1975)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rosch, E., Mervis, C.B.: Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structural of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7, 573–605 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Roth, E.M., Shoben, E.J.: The effect of context on the structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 15, 346–378 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shamsfard, M., Abdollahzadeh Barforoush, A.: Learning ontologies from natural language texts. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 60(1), 17–63 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Smith, E.E., Medin, D.L.: Categories and Concepts. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1981)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Straccia, U.: A fuzzy description logic. In: AAAI, pp. 594–599 (1998)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Straccia, U.: Reasoning within fuzzy description logics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 14, 137–166 (2001)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tamma, V., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: An ontology model to facilitate knowledge sharing in multi-agent systems. Knowledge Engineering Review 17(1), 41–60 (2002)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Widyantot, D.H., Yen, J.: Using fuzzy ontology for query refinement in a personalized abstract search engine. In: Proceedings of IFSA and NAFIPS (2001)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wiesman, F., Roos, N.: Domain independent learning of ontology mappings. In: AAMAS, pp. 846–853 (2004)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8, 338–353 (1965)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ching-man Au Yeung
    • 1
  • Ho-fung Leung
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringThe Chinese University of Hong KongShatinHong Kong

Personalised recommendations