Advertisement

Subsumption in knowledge graphs

  • Mark Willems
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 567)

Abstract

An important notion for representation formalisms of natural language semantics, is a subsumption hierarchy. Therefore a precise definition of subsumption is necessary. We shall argue that the usual solution of providing an extensional semantics and mapping subsumption onto set-inclusion, is not satisfactory. The problem is that extensions lose track of the structure. A better solution is used for conceptual graphs [13], where derivation rules define generalization.

In this paper we shall introduce knowledge graphs, and give a definition of subsumption, that does keep track of the structure. Moreover, because structural subsumption can be tested with a tractable algorithm, the fundamental tradeoff between expressiveness and complexity of inferences [10] does not occur.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    H. Aït-Kaci. An algebraic semantics approach to the effective resolution of type equations. Theor. Comp. Sc., 45:293–351, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    A.R. Anderson and N.D. Belnap. Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1975.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    R. R. Bakker. Knowledge Graphs: representation and structuring of scientific knowledge. PhD thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, 1987.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    J. Barwise and J. Perry. Situations and Attitudes. MIT Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    R. J. Brachman. On the epistemological status of semantic networks. In N. V. Findler, editor, Associative Networks Representation and Use of Knowledge by Computers, pages 3–50. Academic Press, Inc., 1979.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    R. J. Brachman and H. J. Levesque. The tractability of subsumption in frame-based description languages. In Proceedings of AAAI-84, pages 34–37. Austin, 1984.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    B. Hollunder, W. Nutt, and M. Schmidt-Schauß. Subsumption algorithms for conception description languages. In Proceedings of 9th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, London, 1990, Pitman Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    M.K. Jackman. Inference and the conceptual graph knowledge representation language. In S. Moralee, editor, Research and development in Expert Systems IV, Proceedings of Expert Systems '87. Cambridge University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    M. Kay. Parsing in functional unification grammar. In D. Dowty, L. Kartunnen, and A. Zwicky, editors, Natural Language Parsing. Cambridge University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    H. J. Levesque and R. J. Brachman. A fundamental tradeoff in knowledge representation and reasoning. In R. J. Brachman and H. J. Levesque, editors, Readings in Knowledge Representation, pages 41–70. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., 1985.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    M. Schmidt-Schauß. Subsumption in KL-ONE is undecidable. In R. Brachman, H. Levesque, and R. Reiter, editors, Proceedings of First International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., 1989.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    J.G. Schmolze. Terminological knowledge representation systems. In R. Brachman, H. Levesque, and R. Reiter, editors, Proceedings of First International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., 1989.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    J. F. Sowa. Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind and Machine. Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1984.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Willems
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Applied MathematicsUniversity of TwenteAE EnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations