Signs and Formal Concepts
In this paper we propose a semiotic conceptual framework which is compatible with Peirce’s definition of signs and uses formal concept analysis for its conceptual structures. The goal of our research is to improve the use of formal languages such as ontology languages and programming languages. Even though there exist a myriad of theories, models and implementations of formal languages, in practice it is often not clear which strategies to use. AI ontology language research is in danger of repeating mistakes that have already been studied in other disciplines (such as linguistics and library science) years ago.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Ballentyne, G.: Class notes (1992) (Unpublished manuscript)Google Scholar
- 4.McCarthy, J.: Notes on Formalizing Context. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Chambery, France, pp. 555–560 (1993)Google Scholar
- 5.Orr, K.T.: Structured Systems Development. Yourdon Press, New York (1977)Google Scholar
- 6.Peirce, C.: A Fragment. CP 2.228. In: Hartshorne, Weiss (eds.) Collected papers, vol. 1-6 (1897); Burks (ed.): vol. 7-8. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1958-1966)Google Scholar
- 7.Prechelt, L.: An empirical comparison of C, C++, Java, Perl, Python, Rexx, and TCL. IEEE Computer 33(10), 23–29 (2000)Google Scholar
- 8.Snelting, G.: Reengineering of Configurations Based on Mathematical Concept Analysis. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 5(2), 99–110 (1995)Google Scholar
- 10.Star, S.L.: The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous problem-solving. In: Huhns, Gasser (eds.) Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Pirman, vol. 2, pp. 37–54 (1989)Google Scholar