Advertisement

Reasoning with Multilevel Contexts in Semantic Metanetworks

  • Vagan Y. Terziyan
  • Seppo Puuronen
Part of the Applied Logic Series book series (APLS, volume 20)

Abstract

It is generally accepted that knowledge has a contextual component. Acquisition, representation, and exploitation of knowledge in context would have a major contribution in knowledge representation, knowledge acquisition, and explanation, as Brezillon and Abu-Hakima supposed in [Brezillon and Abu-Hakima, 1995]. Among the advantages of the use of contexts in knowledge representation and reasoning Akman and Surav [Akman and Surav, 1996] mentioned the following: economy of representation, more competent reasoning, allowance for inconsistent knowledge bases, resolving of lexical ambiguity and flexible entailment. Brezillon and Cases noticed however in [Brezillon and Cases, 1995] that knowledge-based systems do not use correctly their knowledge. Knowledge being acquired from human experts does not usually include its context.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [Akman and Surav, 1996]
    V. Akman and M. Suray. Steps Towards Formalizing Context. AI Magazine, 17, 55–72, 1996Google Scholar
  2. [Attardi and Simi, 1995]
    G. Attardi and M. Simi. A Formalization of Viewpoints. Fundamenta Informaticae, 23, 149–174, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. Bondarenko et al.,1993] M. F. Bondarenko, V. A. Grebenyuk and V.Ya. Terziyan. Reasoning Based on the Algebra of Semantic Relation. Pattern Recognition and Image Analysis, 3,488–499,1993.Google Scholar
  4. Brezillon, 1994] R. Brezillon. Context Needs in Cooperative Building of Explanations. In Proc. Of the First European Conference on Cognitive Science in Industry, pp. 443–450, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. Brezillon and Abu-Hakima, 1995] P. Brezillon and S. Abu-Hakima. Using Knowledge in its Context:Google Scholar
  6. Report on the IJCAI-93 Workshop. AI Magazine, 16, 87–91, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. [Brezillon and Cases, 1995]
    R Brezillon and E. Cases. Cooperating for Assisting Intelligently Operators. In Proc. of Actes International Workshop on the Design of Cooperative Systems, pp. 370–384, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. Buvac et al.,1993] S. Buvac, V. Buvac and I. A. Mason. Propositional Logic of Context. In Proceedings of the Eleventh AAAI Conference,Washington DC, pp. 412–419, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. Buvac et al.,1994] S. Buvac, V. Buvac and I. A. Mason. Sematics of Propositional Contexts. In Proceedings of the Eight International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems,pp. 468477. Volume 869 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence,Springer VerlagGoogle Scholar
  10. Buvac et al.,1995] S. Buvac, V. Buvac and I. A. Mason. Metamathematics of Contexts. Fundamenta Informaticae,23, 263–301, 1995.Google Scholar
  11. [Buvac, 1996]
    S. Buvac. Quantificational Logic of Context. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth AAA) Conference, Menlo Park, California, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. [Edmonds, 1997]
    B. Edmonds. A Simple-Minded Network Model with Context-like Objects. CPM Report 97–15, The workshop on Context at the European Conference on Cognitive Science (ECCS’97), Manchester, April, 1997.Google Scholar
  13. Farquhar et al.,1995] A. Farquhar, A. Dappert, R. Fikes and W. Pratt. Integrating Information Sources Using Context Logic. Technical Report KSL-95–12, Stanford, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. Grebenyuk et al.,1996] V. Grebenyuk, H. B. Kaikova, V. Ya. Terziyan and S. Puuronen. The Law of Semantic Balance and its Use in Modeling Possible Worlds. In STeP-96 - Genes, Nets and Symbols,pp. 97–103. Publications of the Finnish AI Society, Vaasa, Finland, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. [Guha, 1991]
    R. V. Guha. Contexts: A Formalization and Some Applications, Stanford Ph.D. Thesis, 1991.Google Scholar
  16. [Halpern and Moses, 1992]
    J. Y. Halpern and Y. Moses. A Guide to Completeness and Complexity for Modal Logic of Knowledge and Belief. Artificial Intelligence, 54, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. [McCarthy, 1993]
    J. McCarthy. Notes on Formalizing Context. In Proc. of 13 International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 555–560, 1993.Google Scholar
  18. McCarthy, 1995] J. McCarthy. A Logical AI Approach to Context. Technical Note, Computer Science Department, Stanford University, 1995, Available in http://wwwformal.stanford.edu/jmc/index.html.Google Scholar
  19. [Puuronen and Terziyan, 1992]
    S. Puuronen and V. Ya. Terziyan. A Metasemantic Network. In New Directions in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 136–143. Publications of the Finnish AI Society, 1992.Google Scholar
  20. [Puuronen and Terziyan, 1996]
    S. Puuronen and V.Ya. Terziyan. Modeling Consensus Knowledge from Multiple Sources Based on Semantics of Concepts. In Challenges of Design, ER’96 International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, Cottbus, Germany, pp. 133–146, 1996.Google Scholar
  21. [Puuronen and Terziyan, 1997a]
    S. Puuronen and V. Ya. Terziyan. Colleague-Oriented Interpretation of Knowledge Acquired from Multiple Experts. In Proceedings of the Joint 1997 Pacific Asian Conference on Expert Systems/Singapore International Conference on Intelligent Systems (PACES/SPICIS 97), D. Patterson, G. Leedham, K. Warendorf and T. A. Hwee, eds. pp. 737–741. The Nanyang Technological University, 1997.Google Scholar
  22. [Puuronen and Terziyan, 1997b]
    S. Puuronen and V.Ya. Terziyan. Voting-Type Technique of the Multiple Expert Knowledge Refinement. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Vol. V. R. H. Sprague, ed. pp. 287–296 IEEE Computer Society Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  23. [Russel and Wefald, 1991]
    S. Russel and E. Wefald. Principles of Metareasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 49, 361–395, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [Shastri, 1989]
    L. Shastri. Default Reasoning in Semantic Networks: A Formalization of Recognition and Inheritance. Artificial Intelligence, 39, 283–355, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [Shapiro, 1991]
    S.C. Shapiro. Cables, Paths and `Subconscious’ Reasoning in Propositional Semantic Networks. In Principles of Semantic Networks, J. F. Sowa, ed. pp. 137–156. Morgan Kaufmann, 1991.Google Scholar
  26. Taylor et al.,1995] W. A. Taylor, D. H. Weimann and P. J. Martin. Knowledge Acquisition and Synthesis in a Multiple Source Multiple Domain Process Context. Expert Systems with Applications,8 295–302, 1995.Google Scholar
  27. [Terziyan, 1993]
    V. Ya. Terziyan. Multilevel Models for Knowledge Bases Control and Their Applications to Automated Information Systems. Post Doctoral Degree Thesis, State Technical University of Radioelectronics, Kharkov, Ukraine, 1993, (in Russian).Google Scholar
  28. [Woods, 1991]
    W. A. Woods. Understanding Subsumption and Taxonomy: A Framework for Progress. In Principles of Semantic Networks, J. F. Sowa, ed. pp. 45–94. Morgan Kaufmann, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vagan Y. Terziyan
    • 1
  • Seppo Puuronen
    • 2
  1. 1.State Technical University of RadioelectronicsUkraine
  2. 2.University of JyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations