A More General Ontology Model with Object Membership and Typicality

  • Yi Cai
  • Ching-man Au Yeung
  • Ho-fung Leung


In this chapter, we analyze the disadvantages of our first model introduced in the Chapter 5. To overcome the limitations of previous models of ontology, in this chapter, we further extent our first model and propose a better formal cognitive model of ontology. The model extends current ontologies to reflect the object membership and typicality in all kinds of concepts including conjunctive (conjunction) concepts, disjunctive (disjunction) concepts and combination concepts. It can outperform previous models and our first model, and make the object membership, typicality and concept representation be modeled more accurately and appropriately.


Characteristic Vector Membership Degree Property Vector Fuzzy Concept Combination Concept 
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]
    Staab S, Studer R (2004) Handbook on Ontologies. Springer, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Stracia U (1998) A Fuzzy Description Logic. In: AAAI’ 98/IAAI’ 98: Proceedings of the Fifteenth National/tenth Conference on Artificial Intelligence/ Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, pp 594–599.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Straccia U (2005) Towards a Fuzzy Description Logic for the Semantic Web. In: Proceedings of the Second European Semantic Web Conference, pp 167–181.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Stoilos G, Stamou G, Tzouvaras V et al (2005) The Fuzzy Description Logic f-SHIN. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Uncertainty Reasoning for the Semantic Web.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Murphy GL (2002) The Big Book of Concepts. MIT Press, Boston.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Galotti KM (2004) Cognitive Psychology In and Out of the Laboratory, 3rd Edn. Wadsworth, Belmont.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Parsons J, Wand Y (2003) Attribute-based Semantic Reconciliation of Multiple Data Sources. Journal on Data Semantics 2800: 21–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy Sets. Information and Control 8: 338–353.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Cross V, Voss CR (1999) Fuzzy Ontologies for Multilingual Document Exploitation. In: Proceedings of the 1999 Conference of NAFIPS, pp 392–397.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Barsalou LW (1985) Ideals, Central Tendency, and Frequency of Instantiation as Determinants of Graded Structure in Categories. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 11(4): 629–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Lesot MJ (2005) Similarity, Typicality and Fuzzy Prototypes for Numerical Data. In: 6th European Congress on Systems Science, Workshop’ similarity and resemblance’.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Yager RR (1996) On Mean Type Aggregation. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cy 26: 209–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Barsalou LW, Sewell DR (1985) Contrasting the Representation of Scripts and Categories. J Mem Lang 24: 646–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Barsalou LW (1992) Cognitive Psychology: An Over View for Cognitive Scientists. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Barsalou LW (1989) Intraconcept Similarity and Its Implications for Interconcept Similarity. In: Vosniadous, Ortony (eds) Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 76–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Xu R, Wunsch D (2005) Survey of Clustering Algorithms. IEEE Trans Neural Network 16(3): 645–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Medin DL, Rosch E (1978) Context Theory of Classification Learning. In: Psychol Rev, vol 85, pp 207–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Smith EE, Medin DL (1981) Categories and Concepts. Harvard University Press, Boston.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Vanpaemel W, Storms G, Ons B (2005) A Varying Abstraction Model for Categorization. In: CogSci2005. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 2277–2282.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Schiffer S, Steele S (1988) Cognition and Representation. Westview Press, New York.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Lesot MJ, Mouillet L, Meunier BB (2005) Fuzzy Prototypes Based on Typicality Degrees. In: Proceedings of the 8th Fuzzy Days’ 04. Springer, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Santini S, Jain R (1995) Similarity Matching. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Asian Conference on Computer Vision, pp 571–580.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press, Beijing and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yi Cai
    • 1
  • Ching-man Au Yeung
    • 2
  • Ho-fung Leung
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Software EngineeringSouth China University of TechnologyGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Hong Kong Applied Science and Technology Research InstituteHong KongChina
  3. 3.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringThe Chinese University of Hong KongHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations