Conventions and Notations for Knowledge Representation and Retrieval

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1867)


Much research has focused on the problem of knowledge accessibility, sharing and reuse. Specific languages (e.g. KIF, CG, RDF) and ontologies have been proposed. Common characteristics, conventions or ontological distinctions are beginning to emerge. Since knowledge providers (humans and software agents) must follow common conventions for the knowledge to be widely accessed and re-used, we propose lexical, structural, semantic and ontological conventions based on various knowledge representation projects and our own research. These are minimal conventions that can be followed by most and cover the most common knowledge representation cases. However, agreement and refinements are still required. We also show that a notation can be both readable and expressive by quickly presenting two new notations – Formalized English (FE) and Frame-CG (FCG) – derived from the CG linear form [9] and Frame-Logics [4]. These notations support the above conventions, and are implemented in our Web-based knowledge representation and document indexation tool, WebKB [7].


Knowledge Representation Relation Type Lexical Database Conceptual Graph Concept Type 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Berners-Lee, T.: The Semantic Toolbox: Building Semantics on top of XML-RDF. W3C Note (May 24, 1999),; see also the Semantic Web Road map at, The Web Architecture: Describing and Exchanging Data at
  2. 2.
    Chein, M., Mugnier, M.L.: Positive Nested Conceptual Graphs. In: Delugach, H.S., Keeler, M.A., Searle, L., Lukose, D., Sowa, J.F. (eds.) ICCS 1997. LNCS, vol. 1257, pp. 95–109. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guarino, N., Masolo, C., Vetere, G.: Ontoseek: Content-based Access to the Web. IEEE Intelligent Systems 14(3), 70–80 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kifer, M., Lausen, G., Wu, J.: Logical Foundations of Object-Oriented and Frame- Based Languages. Journal of the ACM 42 (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Martin, P.: Using the WordNet Concept Catalog and a Relation Hierarchy for Knowledge Acquisition. In: Peirce 1995, 4th Peirce workshop, Santa Cruz (1995),
  6. 6.
    Martin, P.: Exploitation de graphes conceptuels et de documents structurés et hypertextes pour l’acquisition de connaissances et la recherche d’informations, PhD Thesis, University of Nice - Sophia Antipolis, France (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Martin, P., Eklund, P.: Embedding Knowledge in Web Documents: CGs versus XML-based Metadata Languages. In: Tepfenhart, W.M. (ed.) ICCS 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1640, pp. 230–246. Springer, Heidelberg (1999),
  8. 8.
    Clark, P., Porter, B.: KM: The Knowledge Machine,
  9. 9.
    Sowa, J.F.: Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind and Machine. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1984), See also:

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Knowledge, Visualization and Ordering Labororatory, School of ITGriffith University

Personalised recommendations