Advertisement

Visually Interacting with a Knowledge Base Using Frames, Logic, and Propositional Graphs

  • Daniel R. Schlegel
  • Stuart C. Shapiro
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7205)

Abstract

The knowledge base of a knowledge representation and reasoning system can simultaneously be thought of as being logic-, frame-, and graph-based. We present a method for naturally extending this three-fold view to methods for visual interaction with the knowledge base in the context of SNePS 3 and its newly developed user interface. Addition to, and querying of, the knowledge base are tasks well suited to a frame or logical representation. Visualization and exploration on the other hand are best done through the use of propositional graphs. We show how these interaction techniques, which are extensions of the underlying knowledge base representation, augment each other to allow users to manipulate and view large knowledge bases.

Keywords

Binary Relation Function Symbol Information Fusion Logical Expression Functional Term 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bodenreider, O.: Experiences in visualizing and navigating biomedical ontologies and knowledge bases. In: Proceedings of the ISMB 2002 SIG Meeting: Bio-ontologies, pp. 29–32 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fahlman, S.: NETL: A System for Representing and Using Real-World Knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge (1979)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fillmore, C.J.: The case for case. In: Bach, E., Harms, R.T. (eds.) Universals in Linguistic Theory, pp. 1–88. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York (1968)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fillmore, C.J.: Frame semantics and the nature of language. In: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech, vol. 280, pp. 20–32 (1976)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Franz Inc., Oakland, CA: Allegro CL 8.2 Documentation (2010, http://www.franz.com/support/documentation/8.2/doc/
  6. 6.
    Harris, N.: OBO-Edit (2011), http://oboedit.org/
  7. 7.
    Hickey, R.: Clojure (2011), http://clojure.org/
  8. 8.
    ISO/IEC: Information technology — Common Logic (CL): a framework for a family of logic-based languages, ISO/IEC 24707:2007(E). ISO/IEC, Switzerland, 1st edn. (October 2007), http://standards.iso/ittf/license.html
  9. 9.
    Jurafsky, D., Martin, J.H.: Speech and Language Processing: An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech Recognition, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Marneffe, M.C., Manning, C.D.: Stanford typed dependencies manual. Stanford Natural Language Processing Group (September 2008), http://nlp.stanford.edu/software/dependencies_manual.pdf
  11. 11.
    National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency: NGA GEOnet names server, GNS (2011), http://earth-info.nga.mil/gns/html/
  12. 12.
    Prentice, M., Kandefer, M., Shapiro, S.C.: Tractor: A framework for soft information fusion. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Information Fusion, Chicago, IL (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prentice, M., Shapiro, S.C.: Using propositional graphs for soft information fusion. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Information Fusion, Edinburgh, UK (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Revelytix, Inc.: Knoodl (2011), http://www.knoodl.com/
  15. 15.
    Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M.R.L., Johnson, C.R., Scheczyk, J.: FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice (2006) (unpublished manuscript)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shapiro, S.C.: Belief spaces as sets of propositions. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence (JETAI) 5(2&3), 225–235 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shapiro, S.C.: An Introduction to SNePS 3. In: Ganter, B., Mineau, G.W. (eds.) ICCS 2000. LNCS(LNAI), vol. 1867, pp. 510–524. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shapiro, S.C.: A logic of arbitrary and indefinite objects. In: Dubois, D., Welty, C., Williams, M. (eds.) Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference (KR 2004), pp. 565–575. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shapiro, S.C.: Set-oriented logical connectives: Syntax and semantics. In: Lin, F., Sattler, U., Truszczynski, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2010), pp. 593–595. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shapiro, S.C., Rapaport, W.J., Kandefer, M., Johnson, F.L., Goldfain, A.: Metacognition in SNePS. AI Magazine 28, 17–31 (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research: The Protégé ontology editor and knowledge acquisition system (2011), http://protege.stanford.edu/
  22. 22.
    The JUNG Framework Development Team: JUNG - Java universal network/graph framework (2010), http://jung.sourceforge.net/
  23. 23.
    Zloof, M.M.: Query by example. In: AFIPS, vol. 44 (1975)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel R. Schlegel
    • 1
  • Stuart C. Shapiro
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Engineering, and Center for Cognitive Science, and Center for Multisource Information FusionUniversity at Buffalo, The State University of New YorkBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations