Advertisement

Towards Collaborative Conceptual Exploration

  • Tom HanikaEmail author
  • Jens Zumbrägel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10872)

Abstract

In domains with high knowledge distribution a natural objective is to create principle foundations for collaborative interactive learning environments. We present a first mathematical characterization of a collaborative learning group, a consortium, based on closure systems of attribute sets and the well-known attribute exploration algorithm from formal concept analysis. To this end, we introduce (weak) local experts for subdomains of a given knowledge domain. These entities are able to refute and potentially accept a given (implicational) query for some closure system that is a restriction of the whole domain. On this we build up a consortial expert and show first insights about the ability of such an expert to answer queries. Furthermore, we depict techniques on how to cope with falsely accepted implications and on combining counterexamples. Using notions from combinatorial design theory we further expand those insights as far as providing first results on the decidability problem if a given consortium is able to explore some target domain. Applications in conceptual knowledge acquisition as well as in collaborative interactive ontology learning are at hand.

Keywords

Formal concept analysis Implications Attribute exploration Collaborative knowledge acquisition Collaborative interactive learning 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Daniel Borchmann and Maximilian Marx for various inspiring discussions on the topic of consortia while starting this project. In particular, the former suggested the name consortium and always is the best critic one can imagine. Furthermore, we are grateful for various challenging discussions with Sergei Obiedkov, including ideas for coping with wrongly accepted implications.

References

  1. 1.
    Ågotnes, T., Wáng, Y.N.: Resolving distributed knowledge. Artif. Intell. 252, 1–21 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burmeister, P., Holzer, R.: Treating incomplete knowledge in formal concept analysis. In: Ganter, B., Stumme, G., Wille, R. (eds.) Formal Concept Analysis. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3626, pp. 114–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11528784_6CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ganter, B.: Attribute exploration with background knowledge. Theor. Comput. Sci. 217(2), 215–233 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ganter, B., Obiedkov, S.A.: Conceptual Exploration, pp. 1–315. Springer, Heidelberg (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49291-8CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ganter, B., Wille, R.: Formal Concept Analysis: Mathematical Foundations. Springer, Heidelberg (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-59830-2. pp. x+284CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Holzer, R.: Knowledge acquisition under incomplete knowledge using methods from formal concept analysis: part II. Fundam. Inform. 63(1), 41–63 (2004)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jäger, G., Marti, M.: A canonical model construction for intuitionistic distributed knowledge. In: Advances in Modal Logic, pp. 420–434. College Publications (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    MacWilliams, F.J., Sloane, N.J.A.: The Theory of Error-Correcting Codes, p. 369. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam (1977). pp. xv+369zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Martin, P., Eklund, P.W.: Large-scale cooperatively-built KBs. In: Delugach, H.S., Stumme, G. (eds.) ICCS-ConceptStruct 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2120, pp. 231–244. Springer, Heidelberg (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44583-8_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Obiedkov, S.: Modal logic for evaluating formulas in incomplete contexts. In: Priss, U., Corbett, D., Angelova, G. (eds.) ICCS-ConceptStruct 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2393, pp. 314–325. Springer, Heidelberg (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45483-7_24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Obiedkov, S., Romashkin, N.: Collaborative conceptual exploration as a tool for crowdsourcing domain ontologies. In: RuZA 2015. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org, vol. 1552, pp. 58–70 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rudolph, S.: Relational exploration: combining description logics and formal concept analysis for knowledge specification. Ph.D. thesis. Technische Universität Dresden, Germany (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stange, D., Nürnberger, A., Heyn, H.: Collaborative knowledge acquisition and exploration in technology search. In: 18. GeNeMe-Workshop 2015. Technische Universität Dresden, pp. 243–249 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stumme, G.: Concept exploration: knowledge acquisition in conceptual knowledge systems. Ph.D. thesis. Darmstadt University of Technology (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tang, M.T., Toussaint, Y.: A collaborative approach for FCA-based knowledge extraction. In: Concept Lattices and Their Applications CLA. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org, vol. 1062, pp. 281–286 (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vrandeĉić, D., Krötzsch, M.: Wikidata: a free collaborative knowledgebase. Commun. ACM 57(10), 78–85 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Knowledge and Data Engineering GroupUniversity of KasselKasselGermany
  2. 2.Interdisciplinary Research Center for Information System DesignUniversity of KasselKasselGermany
  3. 3.Faculty of Computer Science and MathematicsUniversity of PassauPassauGermany

Personalised recommendations