Advertisement

Formal Concept Analysis Methods for Dynamic Conceptual Graphs

  • Bernhard Ganter
  • Sebastian Rudolph
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2120)

Abstract

Conceptual Graphs (CG), originally developed for static data representation have been extended to cope with dynamical aspects. This paper adresses two questions connected with the topic: How can implicational knowledge about a system’s states and behaviour be derived from a dynamic CG description and how can the CG specification process be supported by automatic or semiautomatic algorithms? Based on Formal Concept Analysis (FCA) we propose methods for both problems. Guided by an example we introduce two kinds of formal contexts containig the dynamic system’s information: state contexts and action contexts. From these the complete implicational knowledge can be derived. Combining the techniques of attribute exploration and determination of a formal context’s concepts, we demonstrate a procedure which interactively asks for the validity of implications and from this information designs a dynamic CG system with the desired properties.

Keywords

State Context Formal Context Formal Concept Analysis Action Context 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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J.F. Baget, D. Genest, M.L. Mugnier: A Pure Graph-Based Solution to the SCG-1 Initiative. In: W. Tepfenhart, W. Cyre (eds.): Conceptual Structures: Standards and Practices, LNAI 1640, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg, pp. 335–376, 1999Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Baumgarten: Petri-Netze. Grundlagen und Anwendungen. Spektrum, Heidelberg, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Chella, M. Frixione, S. Gaglio: Towards a Conceptual Representation of Actions. In: E. Lamina, P. Mello (eds.): AI*IA 99, LNAI 1792, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg, pp. 333–344, 2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    H. S. Delugach: Dynamic Assertion and Retraction of Conceptual Graphs. In: Eileen C. Way (ed.): Proc. Sixth Annual Workshop on Conceptual Graphs. SUNY Binghamton, Binghamton, New York, pp. 15–26, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    B. Ganter, R. Wille: Formal Concept Analysis: Mathematical Foundations. Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg 1999.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. W. Mineau: From Actors to Processes: The representation of Dynamic Knowledge Using Conceptual Graphs. In: M.L. Mugnier, M. Chein (eds.): Conceptual Structures: Theory, Tools and Application, LNAI 1453, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg, pp. 198–208, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. F. Sowa: Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind and Machine. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1984zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. H. Starke: Analyse von Petri-Netz-Modellen. Teubner, Stuttgart, 1990.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    K. E. Wolff: Towards a Conceptual System Theory. In: Proc. Third International Conference on Computing Anticipatory Systems. American Institute of Physics, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernhard Ganter
    • 1
  • Sebastian Rudolph
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Algebra Department of Mathematics and Natural SciencesDresden University of TechnologyGermany

Personalised recommendations