Advertisement

Type theoretic semantics for SemNet

  • Shiu S. 
  • Luo Z. 
  • Garigliano R. 
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1085)

Abstract

Semantic Networks have long been recognised as an important tool for modelling human type reasoning. This paper describes an attempt to give a formal semantics of a semantic network in constructive type theory.

The particular net studied is SemNet, the internal knowledge representation for LOLITA: a large scale natural language engineering system. SemNet has been designed with large scale, efficiency, integration and expressiveness in mind. It supports many different forms of plausible and valid reasoning, including: analogy, epistemic reasoning and inheritance. Type theory is used to define the syntactic and semantic models of SemNet. Because of the notion of an internal logic, which follows from the ‘propositions as types’ principle, both of these models can be reasoned about in the same framework. Once formal semantics have been defined they can then be used to analyse the different reasoning mechanisms.

A further advantage is that (because of applications to formal methods for software engineering) type checkers/proof assistants have been built. These tools are ideal for organising and managing the analysis of formal models.

The models are shown to be useful in analysing correctness of implementation of the algorithms, proving consistency and highlighting the assumptions and meaning of the valid and plausible reasoning.

Keywords

Type Theory Semantic Network Formal Semantic Reasoning Mechanism Proof Assistant 
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. [AS93]
    S. S. Ali and S. C. Shapiro. Natural language processing using a propositional semantic network with structured variables. Minds and Machines, 3, No 4, 1993.Google Scholar
  2. [Can93]
    Ronnie Cann. Formal Semantics, An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  3. [CF58]
    H. B. Curry and R. Feys. Cominatory Logic, volume 1. North Holland Publishing Company, 1958.Google Scholar
  4. [CH88]
    Th. Coquand and G. Huet. The Calculus of Constructions. Information and Computation, 76(2/3), 1988.Google Scholar
  5. [Con86]
    R. L. Constable. Implementing Mathematics with the NuPRL Proof Development System. Prentice Hall, 1986.Google Scholar
  6. [Dow90]
    G. Dowek. The coq proof assistant: User's guide (version 5.6). Technical report, INRIA-Rocquencourt and CNRS-ENS Lyon, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. [FK88]
    C. Froidevaux and D. Kayser. Inheritance in semantic networks and default logic. In P.Smets, E. H. Mamdani, D. Dubois, and H. Prade, editors, Non-Standard Logics for Automated Reasoning. Academic Press, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers, 1988.Google Scholar
  8. [Gir72]
    J. Y. Girard. Interprétation fonctionelle et élimination des coupures de l'arithmetique. PhD thesis, 1972.Google Scholar
  9. [How80]
    W. A. Howard. The formulae-as-types notion of construction. In J. Hindley and J. Seldin, editors, To H. B. Curry: Essays on Combinatory Logic. Academic Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  10. [KC93]
    D. Kumar and H. Chalupsky. Guest Editorial for Special Issue on Propositional Knowledge Representation. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 5, No 2 and 3, 1993.Google Scholar
  11. [LG94]
    D. Long and R. Garigliano. Reasoning By Analogy And Causality: A model and application. Artificial Intelligence. Ellis Horwood, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. [LP92]
    Z. Luo and R. Pollack. LEGO Proof Development System: User's Manual. Technical report, University of Edinburgh LFCS report series, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. [Luo94]
    Z. Luo. Computation and Reasoning: A Type Theory for Computer Science. Oxford Science Publications, 1994.Google Scholar
  14. [M+95]
    R. Morgan et al. Description of the lolita system as used in muc-6. In to appear in — Proceedings Sixth Message Understanding Conference (MUC-6), 1995.Google Scholar
  15. [ML84]
    P. Martin-Lof. Intuitionistic Type Theory. Bibliopolis, 1984.Google Scholar
  16. [MN94]
    L. Magnusson and B. Nordström. The ALF proof editor and its proof engine. In Types for proof and programs, LNCS, 1994.Google Scholar
  17. [NPS90]
    B. Nordstrom, K. Petersson, and J. Smith. Programming in Martin-Lofs Type Theory: An Introduction. Oxford University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  18. [Ran94]
    A. Rante. Type-Theoretical Grammar. Oxford Science Publications, 1994.Google Scholar
  19. [Sho96]
    S. Short. Knowledge Representation of Lolita. PhD thesis, (to be submitted) Department of Computer Science, University of Durham, 1996.Google Scholar
  20. [Sow84]
    J. F. Sowa. Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind and Machine. The Systems Programming Series. Addison Wesley, 1984.Google Scholar
  21. [Woo91]
    W. A. Woods. Understanding subsumption and taxonomy: A framework for progress. In J. F. Sowa, editor, Principles of Semantic Networks: Explorations in the Representation of Knowledge, chapter 1. Morgan Kauffman, 1991.Google Scholar
  22. [WS92]
    W. A. Woods and J. G. Schmolze. The KL-One family. Computers Mathematics and Applications, 23, No 2 and 3:133–177, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shiu S. 
    • 1
  • Luo Z. 
    • 1
  • Garigliano R. 
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory for Natural Language Engineering, School of Computer ScienceUniversity of DurhamDurhamUK

Personalised recommendations