Some Remarks on the Semantics of Representation Languages

  • David J. Israel
  • Ronald J. Brachman
Part of the Topics in Information Systems book series (TINF)

Abstract

It has been said many times that semantic nets are mere notational variants of predicate calculus. But before we lay down our nets, we ought at least to be clear about what predicate calculus is. We will attempt to make some clarifications in this regard. We also devote some attention to the notions of semantic nets. In the end, we simply plead, for an open mind.

Keywords

Burning Expense Posit Straw Trench 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [AI80]
    Artificial Intelligence, Special Issue on Non-Monotonic Logic, D. Bobrow (ed.), Vol. 13, Nos. 1 and 2, April 1980.Google Scholar
  2. [BARW81]
    Barwise, J., “Some Computational Aspects of Situation Semantics (Abstract),” Unpublished manuscript, 1981.Google Scholar
  3. [BP80]
    Barwise, J., J. Perry, “The Situation Underground,” unpublished manuscript, 1980.Google Scholar
  4. [BP81a]
    Barwise, J., J. Perry, “Situations and Attitudes,”Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 78, No. 11, October 1981, pp. 668–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [BP81b]
    Barwise, J., J. Perry, “Semantic Innocence and Uncompromising Situations,” in P.A. French, T.E. Uehling, Jr., H.K. Wettstein, (eds.),The Foundation’s of Analytic Philosophy, Midwest Studies in Philosophy, Vol. VI, Univ. of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1981, pp. 387–404.Google Scholar
  6. [BRAC79]
    Brachman, R.J., “On the Epistemological Status of Semantic Networks” in [FIND79], pp. 3–50.Google Scholar
  7. [BRAC80a]
    Brachman, R.J., “I Lied about the Trees,” unpublished manuscript, 1980.Google Scholar
  8. [BRAC80b]
    Brachman, R.J., “An Introduction to KL-ONE,” in R.J. Brachman, et al. (eds.),Research in Natural Language Understanding, Annual Report (1 Sept 78–31 Aug. 79), Bolt, Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge, Mass., 1980, pp. 13–46.Google Scholar
  9. [BL82]
    Brachman, R.J., H. Levesque, “Competence in Knowledge Representation,”Proc. AAAI National Conference, Pittsburgh, Penn., August 1982, pp. 189–192.Google Scholar
  10. [BRES72]
    Bressan, A.,A General Interpreted Modal Calculus, Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, Conn., 1972.MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. [BZ81]
    Brodie, M.L., S.N. Zilles (eds.),Proc. Workshop on Data Abstraction, Databases, and Conceptual Modelling, SIGART Newsletter, No. 74, January 1981;SIGMOD Record, Vol. 11, No. 2, February 1981;SIGPLAN Notices, Vol. 16, No. 1, January 1981.Google Scholar
  12. [BZ81]
    Brodie, M.L., S.N. Zilles (eds.),Proc. Workshop on Data Abstraction, Databases, and Conceptual Modelling, SIGART Newsletter, No. 74, January 1981;SIGMOD Record, Vol. 11, No. 2, February 1981;SIGPLAN Notices, Vol. 16, No. 1, January 1981.Google Scholar
  13. [CHUR40]
    Church, A., “A Formulation of the Simple Theory of Types,”Journal of Symbolic Logic, Vol. 5, 1940, pp. 56–68.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [FAHL79]
    Fahlman, S.E.,NETL: A System for Representing and Using Real-World Knowledge, MIT Press, 1979.MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. [HAYE77]
    Hayes, P. J., “In Defense of Logic,”Proc. 5th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Cambridge, Mass., 1977, pp. 559–565.Google Scholar
  16. [HAYE78]
    Hayes, P.J., “The Ontology of Liquids,” unpublished manuscript, 1978.Google Scholar
  17. [HAYE79]
    Hayes, P.J., “The Logic of Frames,” in D. Metzing (ed.),Frame Conceptions and Text Understanding, Walter de Gruyter and Co., Berlin, 1979, pp. 46–61.Google Scholar
  18. [HENK50]
    Henkin, L., “Completeness in the Theory of Types,”Journal of Symbolic Logic, Vol. 15, 1950, pp. 81–91.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [ISRA80]
    Israel, D. J., “What’s Wrong with Non-Monotonic Logic?,” Proc. 1st National Conference on Artifical Intelligence, American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Stanford, Calif., 1980, pp. 99–101.Google Scholar
  20. [ISRA82]
    Israel, D.J., “On Interpreting Semantic Network Formalisms,” International Journal of Computer Mathematics, (to appear in a special issue on Computational Linguistics edited by N. Cercone); also available as BBN Report No. 5117, Bolt, Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge, Mass., 1982.Google Scholar
  21. [LEW168]
    Lewis, D., “Counterpart Theory and Quantified Modal Logic,” Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 65, 1968, pp. 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [MCDE80]
    McDermott, D., “Non-Monotonic Logic 11: Non-Monotonic Modal Theories,” Research Report No. 174, Dept. of Computer Science, Yale Univ., February 1980.Google Scholar
  23. [MINS75]
    Minsky, M., “A Framework for Representing Knowledge,” in P. Winston (ed.), The Psychology of Computer Vision, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1975, pp. 211–277.Google Scholar
  24. [MONT74]
    Montague, R., “The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English,” in R. Thomason (ed.), Formal Philosophy, Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, 1974, pp. 247–270.Google Scholar
  25. [NEWE80]
    Newell, A., “Physical Symbol Systems,” Cognitive Science, Vol. 4, No. 2, April-June 1980, pp. 135–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [REIT78c]
    Reiter, R., “On Reasoning by Default,” Proc. Second TINLAP Conference, Urbana, Ill., July 1978, pp. 210–218.Google Scholar
  27. [ROSC75]
    Rosch, E., “Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 104, 1975, pp. 192–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [ROUT79]
    Routley, R., unpublished manuscript, 1980.Google Scholar
  29. [RS76]
    Rich, C., H.E. Shrobe, “Initial Report On A LISP Programmer’s Apprentice,” M.S. thesis (Technical Report MIT/AI/ TR-354), MIT Laboratory for Artificial Intelligence, December 1976.Google Scholar
  30. [REIT78c]
    Reiter, R., “On Reasoning by Default,” Proc. Second TINLAP Conference, Urbana, Ill., July 1978, pp. 210–218.Google Scholar
  31. [ROSC75]
    Rosch, E., “Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 104, 1975, pp. 192–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [ROUT79]
    Routley, R., unpublished manuscript, 1980.Google Scholar
  33. [RS76]
    Rich, C., H.E. Shrobe, “Initial Report On A LISP Programmer’s Apprentice,” M.S. thesis (Technical Report MIT/AI/ TR-354), MIT Laboratory for Artificial Intelligence, December 1976.Google Scholar
  34. [SCHU76a]
    Schubert, L.K., “Extending the Expressive Power of Semantic Networks,” Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 7, No. 2, Summer 1976, pp. 163–198.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [SMIT82]
    Smith, B.C., “Reflection and Semantics in a Procedural Language,” Technical Report MIT/LCS/TR-272, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, May 1982.Google Scholar
  36. [TARK56]
    Tarski, A., Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, Oxford Univ. Press, 1956.Google Scholar
  37. [TURN81b]
    Turner, R., “Montague Semantics, Nominalization, and Scott’s Domains,” unpublished manuscript, 1981.Google Scholar
  38. WOOD75] Woods, W.A., “What’s in a Link: Foundations for Semantic Networks,” in [BC75], pp. 35–82Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • David J. Israel
    • 1
  • Ronald J. Brachman
    • 2
  1. 1.Bolt Beranek & Newman, Inc.USA
  2. 2.Fairchild Laboratory for Artificial Intelligence ResearchUSA

Personalised recommendations