Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modelling Object Typicality in Description Logics

  • Conference paper
AI 2009: Advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI 2009)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 5866))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

We present a semantic model of typicality of concept members in description logics (DLs) that accords well with a binary, globalist cognitive model of class membership and typicality. We define a general preferential semantic framework for reasoning with object typicality in DLs. We propose the use of feature vectors to rank concept members according to their defining and characteristic features, which provides a modelling mechanism to specify typicality in composite concepts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baader, F., Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: Description logics. In: van Harmelen, F., Lifschitz, V., Porter, B. (eds.) Handbook of Knowledge Representation, pp. 135–180. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Britz, K., Heidema, J., Labuschagne, W.: Semantics for dual preferential entailment. Journal of Philosophical Logic 38, 433–446 (2009)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Britz, K., Heidema, J., Meyer, T.: Semantic preferential subsumption. In: Proceedings of KR 2008, pp. 476–484. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chater, N., Lyon, K., Meyers, T.: Why are conjunctive categories overextended? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 16(3), 497–508 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Donini, F.M., Nardi, D., Rosati, R.: Description logics of minimal knowledge and negation as failure. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 3(2), 177–225 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Freund, M., Lehmann, D., Morris, P.: Rationality, transitivity and contraposition. Artificial Intelligence 52(2), 191–203 (1991)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Giordano, L., Gliozzi, V., Olivetti, N., Pozzato, G.L.: Preferential description logics. In: Dershowitz, N., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4790, pp. 257–272. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Giordano, L., Gliozzi, V., Olivetti, N., Pozzato, G.L.: Reasoning about typicality in preferential description logics. In: Hölldobler, S., Lutz, C., Wansing, H. (eds.) JELIA 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5293, pp. 192–205. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Grossi, D., Dignum, F., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Context in categorization. In: Serafini, L., Bouquet, P. (eds.) Proceedings of CRR 2005. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 136. CEUR-WS (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hampton, J.A.: Overextension of conjunctive concepts: Evidence for a unitary model of concept typicality and class inclusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 14(1), 12–32 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hampton, J.A.: Concepts as prototypes. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation 46, 79–113 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kamp, H., Partee, B.: Prototype theory and compositionality. Cognition 57, 129–191 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kraus, S., Lehmann, D., Magidor, M.: Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artificial Intelligence 44, 167–207 (1990)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Lehmann, D.: Stereotypical reasoning: Logical properties. Logic Journal of the IGPL 6(1), 49–58 (1998)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Lehmann, D., Magidor, M.: What does a conditional knowledge base entail? Artificial Intelligence 55, 1–60 (1992)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Lyon, K., Chater, N.: Localist and globalist approaches to concepts. In: Gilhooly, K.J., Keane, M.T.G., Logie, R.H., Erdos, G. (eds.) Lines of Thinking. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Osherson, D.N., Smith, E.E.: Gradedness and conceptual combination. Cognition 12, 299–318 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Osherson, D.N., Smith, E.E.: On typicality and vagueness. Cognition 64, 189–206 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sheremet, M., Tishkovsky, D., Wolter, F., Zakhharyaschev, M.: A logic for concepts and similarity. Journal of Logic and Computation 17(3), 415–452 (2007)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Shoham, Y.: Reasoning about Change: Time and Causation from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Yeung, C., Leung, H.: Ontology with likeliness and typicality of objects in concepts. In: Embley, D.W., Olivé, A., Ram, S. (eds.) ER 2006. LNCS, vol. 4215, pp. 98–111. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. KSG, Meraka Institute, CSIR, South Africa

    Katarina Britz & Thomas Meyer

  2. Dept of Mathematical Sciences, University of South Africa,  

    Johannes Heidema

  3. School of Computing, University of South Africa,  

    Katarina Britz & Thomas Meyer

Authors
  1. Katarina Britz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Johannes Heidema
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Clayton School of Information Technology, Monash University, 3800, Clayton, VIC, Australia

    Ann Nicholson

  2. School of Computer Science and Information Technology, RMIT University, 3001, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Xiaodong Li

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Britz, K., Heidema, J., Meyer, T. (2009). Modelling Object Typicality in Description Logics. In: Nicholson, A., Li, X. (eds) AI 2009: Advances in Artificial Intelligence. AI 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 5866. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10439-8_51

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10439-8_51

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-10438-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-10439-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation