# Ontology revision

Invited Papers

First Online:

## Abstract

Knowledge systems as currently configured are static in their concept sets. As knowledge maintenance becomes more sophisticated, the need to address issues concerning dynamic concept sets will naturally arise. Such dynamics is properly called ontology revision, or in the simpler case, expansion. A number of sub-disciplines in artificial intelligence, philosophy and recursion theory have results that are relevant to ontology expansion even though their motivations were quite different. More recently in artificial intelligence ontologies have been explicitly considered. This paper is partly a summary of early results, and partly an account of ongoing work in this area.

## Keywords

ontology concept formation theoretical term predicate invention theory change induction type hierarchy action## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- [B&J]G. Boolos and R. Jeffery, “Computability and Logic”, 2ed, Cambridge University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
- [BUC]J.R. Buchi, “Turing Machines and the Entscheidungsproblem”, Math. Annalen, 148, 1962, pp 201–213.Google Scholar
- [CAR]R. Carnap, “Testability and Meaning”, Philosophy of Science, III, 1936, pp 419–471; IV, 1937, pp 1–40.Google Scholar
- [KLE]S.C. Kleene, “Finite Axiomatizability of Theories in the Predicate Calculus Using Additional Predicate Symbols”, Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society, no. 10,1952, pp 27–68.Google Scholar
- [K&F]R. Kwok and N. Foo, “Detecting, Diagnosing and Correcting Faults in a Theory of Actions”, Proceedings of the Second Automated Reasoning Day, Bribie Island, 1994, 5p.Google Scholar
- [LLO]J. Lloyd, “Mathematical Foundations of Logic Programming”, Springer Verlag, 1984.Google Scholar
- [LYN]R. Lyndon, “Properties Preserved Under Homomorphisms”, Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 9,1959, pp 143–154.Google Scholar
- [MCC]J. McCarthy, “Applications of Circumscription to Formalising Commonsense Knowledge”, Artificial Intelligence, 28, 1, 1986, pp 89–116.Google Scholar
- [MGB]S. Muggleton and R. Buntine, “Machine Invention of First-Order Predicates by Inverting Resolution”, Fifth International Conference on Machine Learning, 1988, Morgan Kaufmann, pp 339–352.Google Scholar
- [NAG]E. Nagel, “The Structure of Science”, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961.Google Scholar
- [QUI]J.R. Quinlan, “Learning Logical Definitions from Relations”, Machine Learning, vol.5, no. 3,1990, pp 239–266.Google Scholar
- [REI]R. Reiter, “Nonmonotonic Reasoning”, Annual Review of Computer Science, 2,1987, pp 147–186.Google Scholar
- [SAN]E. Sandewall, “Features and Fluents”, Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
- [SHA]E. Shapiro, “Inductive Inference of Theories from Facts”, TR 192, Dept of Computer Science, Yale University, 1981.Google Scholar
- [SHS]W-M. Shen and H.A. Simon, “Fitness Requirements for Scientific Theories Containing Recursive Theoretical Terms”, British Journal of Philosophy, 44,1993, pp 641–652.Google Scholar
- [STA]I. Stahl, “On the Untility of Predicate Invention in Inductive Logic Programming”, Proceedings of the European Conference on Machine Learning, ECML-94, 1994, pp 272–286.Google Scholar
- [C&L]CL. Chang and R.C.T. Lee, “Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving”, Academic Press, 1973.Google Scholar
- [CLA]K. Clark, “Negation as Failure”, in Logic and Databases, ed. H. Gallaire and J. Minker, Plenum Press, 1978, pp 293–322.Google Scholar
- [CRA]W Craig, “On Axiomatizability Within A System”, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 18, no. 1, pp 30–32.Google Scholar
- [C&V]W. Craig and R.L Vaught, “Finite Axiomatizability Using Additional Predicates”, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 23, no. 3, pp 289–308.Google Scholar
- [END]H. Enderton, “A Mathematical Introduction to Logic”, Academic Press, 1972.Google Scholar
- [FO1]N. Foo, “Comments on Defining Software by Continuous Smooth Functions”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 19, no. 3, 1993, pp 307–309.Google Scholar
- [FO2]N. Foo, “How Theories Fail — A Preliminary Report”, Proceedings National Conference on Information Technology, Penang, Malaysia, 1991, pp 244–251.Google Scholar
- [F&T]N. Foo and T. Tang, “An Inductive Principle for Learning Logical Definitions from Relations”, Proceedings of the Seventh Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, World Scientific Press, 1994, pp 45–52.Google Scholar
- [FGRT]N. Foo, B. Garner, A. Rao, and E. Tsui, “Semantic Distance in Conceptual Graphs”, in “Current Directions in Conceptual Structure Research”, (eds) P Eklund, T Nagle, J Nagle and L Gerhotz, Ellis Horwood, 1992, pp 149–154.Google Scholar
- [GOW]H. Gaifman, D. Osherson and S. Weinstein, “A Reason for Theoretical Terms”, Erkenntnis, 32, 1990, pp 149–159.Google Scholar
- [GAR]P. Gardenfors, “Knowledge in Flux”, Bradford Books, MIT Press, 1988.Google Scholar
- [GF1]G. Gibbon and N. Foo, “Predicate Discovery in a Model Identification Framework”, Proceedings of the Sixth Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, World Scientific Press, 1993, pp 65–70.Google Scholar
- [GF2]G. Gibbon and N. Foo, “A General Framework for Concept Formation”, Proceedings of the Seventh Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, World Scientific Press, 1994, pp 53–59.Google Scholar
- [HEM]C. Hempel, “Fundamentals of Concept Formation in Empirical Science”, International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, vol. 2, no. 7, University of Chicago Press, 1952.Google Scholar

## Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995