Abstractions for Knowledge Organization of Relational Descriptions

  • Isabelle Bournaud
  • Mélanie Courtine
  • Jean-Daniel Zucker
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1864)

Abstract

The goal of conceptual clustering is to construct a hierarchy of concepts which cluster objects based on their similarities. Knowledge organization aims at generating the set of maximally specific concepts for all possible classifications: the Generalization Space. Our research focuses on the organization of relational data represented using conceptual graphs. Unfortunately, the generalization of relational descriptions necessary to build the Generalization Space leads to a combinatorial explosion. This paper proposes to incrementally introduce the relations by using a sequence of languages that are more and more expressive. The algorithm proposed, called KIDS, is based upon an iterative reformulation of the objects descriptions. Initially represented as conceptual graphs, they are reformulated into abstract objects represented as <attribute, value> pairs. This representation allows us to use an efficient propositional knowledge organization algorithm. Experiments on Chinese character databases show the interest of using KIDS to build organizations of relational concepts.

Keywords

Relational data Unsupervised learning Reformulation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bournaud L: Regroupement conceptuel pour l’organisation de connaissances. Ph.D. Thesis, LIP6-Pole IA, Université Paris VI. (1996).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bournaud I., Ganascia J.-G.: Accounting for Domain Knowledge in the Construction of a Generalization Space. ICCS’97, Lectures Notes in AI n°1257, Springer-Verlag, pp. 446–459. (1997).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bournaud L, Zucker J.-D.: Integrating Machine Learning Techniques in A Guided Discovery Tutoring Environment for Chinese Characters, International Journal of Chinese and Oriental Languages Information, Processing Society, 8(2). (1998).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carpineto C, Romano G.: GALOIS: An order-theoretic approach to conceptual clustering. Tenth International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML). (1993).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chein M., Mugnier M.L.: Conceptual Graphs: Fundamental Notions, Revue d’Intelligence Artificielle, 6(4). (1992). 365–406.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Choueiry B.Y., McIlraith S., Iwasaki Y., Loeser T., Neller T., Engelmore R.S., Fikes R.: Thoughts on a Practical Theory of Reformulation for Reasoning about Physical Systems, Symposium on Abstraction, Reformulation and Approximation (SARA-98). (1998). 25–36.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cook D. J., Holder L. B.: Substructure discovery using minimum description length and background knowledge. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 1. (1994). 231–255.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Raedt L., Bruynooghe M.: An overview of the interactive concept-learner and theory revisor CLINT. Inductive Logic Programming. S. Muggleton. London, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. (1992). 63–192.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ellman T.: Hill climbing in a Hierarchy of Abstraction Spaces, Rutgers University. (1993).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fisher D.: Approaches to conceptual clustering. Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), Los Angeles, CA, Morgan Kaufmann. (1985).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fisher D.: Knowledge Acquisition Via Incremental Conceptual Clustering. Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach. R. Michalski, J. Carbonell and T. Mitchell. San Mateo, CA, Morgan Kaufmann. II. (1987). 139–172.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fisher D.: Iterative Optimization and Simplification of Hierarchical Clusterings. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 4. (1996). 147–179.MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garey, M., D. Johnson: Computers and intractability: A guide to the theory of NP-completeness. San Fransisco, CA, W. H. Freeman. (1979).MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gennari J. H., Langley P., Fisher D.: Models of incremental concept formation. Artificial Intelligence 40–1(3). (1989). 11–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Giunchiglia, F., Walsh T.: A Theory of Abstraction, Artificial Intelligence 56(2–3). (1992). 323–390.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haussler D.: Learning Conjunctive Concepts in Structural Domains. Machine Learning (4), (1989). 7–40.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ketterlin A., Gancarski P., Korczak J.J.: Conceptual clustering in Structured databases: a Practical Approach. Proceedings of the Knowledge Discovery in Databases KDD’95, AAAI Press. (1995).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kietz J.U., Morik K.: A polynomial approach to the constructive induction of structural knowledge, Machine Learning 14(2), (1994). 193–217.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Levesque HJ., Brachman R.J.: A fundamental tradeoff in knowledge representation and reasoning. In R.J. Brachman, H.J. Levesque, editor, Readings in Knowledge Representation, Morgan Kaufmann, (1985). 41–70.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liquiere M., Sallanatin J.: Structural Machine Learning with Galois Lattice and Graphs. Fifteen International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), (1998).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Michalski R. S., Stepp R.E.: An application of AI techniques to structuring objects into an optimal conceptual hierarchy. Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI). (1981).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Michalski R. S.: A theory and methodology of inductive learning, Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Vol. I. Morgan Kaufmann (1983). 83–129.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mineau G., Gecsei J., Godin R.: Structuring knowledge bases using Automatic Learning. Sixth International Conference on Data Engineering, Los Angeles, USA. (1990).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Muggleton, S., Raedt L.D.: Inductive Logic Programming: Theory and Methods. Journal of Logic Programming 19(20). (1994). 629–679.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sowa J.F.: Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind and Machine, Addisson-Wesley Publishing Company. (1984).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wnek J., Michalski R.: Hypothesis-driven constructive induction in AQ17-HCI: a method and experiments. Machine Learning 14(2) (1994). 139–168MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zilberstein S.: Using Anytime Algorithms in Intelligent Systems, AI Magazine, 17(3). (1996). 73–83Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zucker J.-D., Ganascia J.-G.: Changes of Representation for Efficient Learning in Structural Domains. International Conference in Machine Learning (ICML’96), Morgan Kaufmann. (1996).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isabelle Bournaud
    • 1
  • Mélanie Courtine
    • 2
  • Jean-Daniel Zucker
    • 2
  1. 1.LRI, Université Paris-SudOrsay CedexFrance
  2. 2.LIP6 - Pole IA, Université Paris VIParis CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations