Advertisement

Exploiting the induced order on type-labeled graphs for fast knowledge retrieval

  • Gerard Ellis
  • Fritz Lehmann
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 835)

Abstract

The graph structure of a conceptual graph can be used for efficient retrieval in complex (graphical) object databases. The aim is to replace most graph matching with efficient operations on precompiled codes for graphs. The unlabeled graph or “skeleton” of a type-labeled conceptual graph (without negated contexts) can be used as a filter for matching, subsumption testing, and unification. For two type-labeled graphs to match, their skeletons must first match. One type-labeled graph can subsume another only if its skeleton is included in that of the other. An skeleton-inclusion hierarchy can be constructed for a useful set of all possible skeletons up to a certain size. That hierarchy is then embedded in a Boolean lattice of bit-strings. Expensive graph comparison operations are traded for very fast bit-string logic operations on the codes. New graphs can be encoded at run time without recompiling the whole hierarchy: having found a graph's structural type, we then use it to hash to the code encoding the poset of all possible type-labeled graphs ordered by subsumption. Some of the order in that poset comes from the subgraph inclusion factor while other order comes from the “typelattice” (on concept-labels) factor. We show how they relate. We are investigating the bounds on code length and new methods of factorisation of conceptual graph databases.

Keywords

information retrieval deductive database subsumption graph database knowledge base type lattice poset bit string encoding skeleton product fret product subgraph isomorphism order theory conceptual graphs 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hassan Aït-Kaci, Robert Boyer, Patrick Lincoln, and Roger Nasr. Efficient implementation of lattice operations. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 11(1):115–146, January 1989.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Robert W. Burch. Valental aspects of Peircean Algebraic Logic. In Fritz Lehmann, editor, Semantic Networks in Artificial Intelligence. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1992. Also appeared in Comp. & Math. with Applications, 23(2–9), 1992, p. 665–667.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yves Caseau. Efficient handfing of multiple inheritance hierarchies. In OOPSLA'93, Washington, September 1993.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. G. Cohn. Completing sort hierarchies. Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 23(2–9):1–50, 1992. Also appears as Semantic Networks in Artificial Intelligence, F. Lehmann, ed., Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. G. Cornell and D. G. Kirkpatrick. A theoretical analysis of various heuristics for the graph isomorphism problem. SIAM Journal of Computing, 9(2), 1980.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Veronica Dahl and Andrew Fall. Logical encoding of conceptual graph lattices. In Guy W. Mineau, Bernard Moulin, and John F. Sowa, editors, Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Conceptual Structures, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, August 4–7 1993. Universite Laval.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gerard Ellis. Compiled hierarchical retrieval. In Tim Nagle, Jan Nagle, Laurie Gerholz, and Peter Eklund, editors, Conceptual Structures: Current Research and Practice, pages 285–310. Ellis Horwood, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gerard Ellis. Efficient retrieval from hierarchies of objects using lattice operations. In Guy W. Mineau, Bernard Moulin, and John F. Sowa, editors, Conceptual Graphs for Knowledge Representation, number 699 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Berlin, 1993. Springer-Verlag. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Conceptual Structures, Quebec City, Canada, August 4–7.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    John W. Esch, editor. Proceedings of the Third Annual Workshop on Conceptual Graphs, St. Paul, Minnesota, August 27 1988.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leslie Ann Goldberg. Efficient Algorithms for Listing Combinatorial Structures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fritz Lehmann. Semantic networks. Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 23(2–9):1–50, 1992. Also appears as Semantic Networks in Artificial Intelligence, F. Lehmann, ed., Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fritz Lehmann. Combining ontological hierarchies. Technical Report 93-1, GRANDAI Software, 4282 Sandburg, Irvine, CA 92715, USA, March 1993.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    George G. Lendaris. Representing conceptual graphs for parallel processing. In [9], 1988.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Robert A. Levinson. Pattern associativity and the retrieval of semantic networks. Computers & Mathematics with Applications Journal, 23(2):573–600, 1992. Part 2 of special issue on Semantic Networks in Artificial Intelligence, Fritz Lehmann, Guest Editor, Pergamon Press. Also in Semantic Networks in Artificial Intelligence, F. Lehmann, ed., Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1992. Also appears as Technical Report UCSC-CRL-90-30, University of California, Computer Research Laboratory, Santa Cruz, CA 95064.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marie-Laure Mugnier and Michel Chein. Characterization and algorithmic recognition of canonical conceptual graphs. In Guy W. Mineau, Bernard Moulin, and John F. Sowa, editors, Conceptual Graphs for Knowledge Representation, number 699 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 294–311, Berlin, 1993. Springer-Verlag. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Conceptual Structures, Quebec City, Canada, August 4–7.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sung H. Myaeng and Aurelio Lopez-Lopez. A flexible algorithm for matching conceptual graphs. In [19], 1991.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Arthur Frederick Parker-Rhodes. Inferential Semantics. Harvester Press/Humanities Press, Hassox, Sussex/Atlantic Highlands, N. J., 1978.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    N.J.A. Sloane. The Handbook of Integer Sequences. Academic Press, San Diego, 1973.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eileen Way, editor. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Workshop on Conceptual Graphs, Binghamton, 1991. SUNY Binghamton.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rudolf Wille. Restructuring lattice theory. In Ivan Rival, editor, Ordered Sets, Dordecht, Holland, 1982. D. Reidel. NATO AST Series C83.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rudolf Wille. Lattices in Data Analysis: How to Draw Them with a Computer. NATO ASI Series C255. Kluwer, Dordecht, 1989.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rudolf Wille. Knowledge acquisition by methods of formal concept analysis. In Ernest Diday, editor, Data Analysis, Learning Symbolic and Numerical Knowledge. Nova Science Publishers, New York-Budapest, 1991.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rudolf Wille. Concept lattices and conceptual knowledge systems. In Fritz Lehmann, editor, Semantic Networks in Artificial Intelligence. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1992. Also appeared in Comp. & Math. with Applications, 23(2–9), 1992, p. 493–515.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Monika Zickwolff. Rule Exploration: First Order Logic in Formal Concept Analysis. PhD thesis, der Technischen Hochschule Darmstadt, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerard Ellis
    • 1
  • Fritz Lehmann
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceRoyal Melbourne Institute of TechnologyMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.GRANDAI SoftwareIrvine

Personalised recommendations