A different perspective on canonicity
One of the most interesting aspects of Conceptual Structures Theory is the notion of canonicity. It is also one of the most neglected: Sowa seems to have abandoned it in the new version of the theory, and most of what has been written on canonicity focuses on the generalization hierarchy of conceptual graphs induced by the canonical formation rules. Although there is a common intuition that a graph is canonical if it is “meaningful”, the original theory is somewhat unclear about what that actually means, in particular how canonicity is related to logic.
This paper argues that canonicity should be kept a first-class notion of Conceptual Structures Theory, provides a detailed analysis of work done so far, and proposes new definitions of the conformity relation and the canonical formation rules that allow a clear separation between canonicity and truth.
TopicsConceptual Graph Theory Knowledge Representation Ontologies
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.C. Beierle, U. Hedstück, U. Pietat, P. H. Schmitt, and J. Siekmann. An order-sorted logic for knowledge representation systems. Technical Report 113, IWBS, April 1990.Google Scholar
- 2.Michel Chein and Marie-Laure Mugnier. Conceptual graphs: fundamental notions. Révue d'Intelligence Artificielle, 6(4):365–406, 1992.Google Scholar
- 3.Gerard Ellis, Robert Levinson, William Rich, and John F. Sowa, editors. Conceptual Structures: Applications, Implementation and Theory — Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Conceptual Structures, volume 954 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Santa Cruz, USA, August 1995. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- 4.John Esch and Robert Levinson. An implementation model for contexts and negation in conceptual graphs. In Ellis et al. , pages 247–262.Google Scholar
- 5.Pavel Kocura. Conceptual graph canonicity and semantic constraints. In Peter W. Eklund, Gerard Ellis, and Graham Mann, editors, Conceptual Structures: Knowledge Representation as Interlingua — Auxiliary Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Conceptual Structures, pages 133–145, Sydney, Australia, August 1996. University of New South Wales.Google Scholar
- 6.M. L. Mugnier and M. Chein. Characterization and algorithmic recognition of canonical conceptual graphs. In Guy W. Mineau, Bernard Moulin, and John F. Sowa, editors, Conceptual Graphs for Knowledge Representation — Proceedings of the First International Conference on Conceptual Structures, volume 699 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 294–311, Québec City, Canada, August 1993. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- 7.Clark A. Sexton. Types, type hierarchies, and canonical graphs. In Gerard Ellis, Robert A. Levinson, William Rich, and John F. Sowa, editors, Conceptual Structures: Applications, Implementation and Theory — Supplementary Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Conceptual Structures, pages 213–221, Santa Cruz, USA, August 1995.Google Scholar
- 8.John F. Sowa. Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind and Machine. Addison-Wesley, 1984.Google Scholar
- 9.John F. Sowa. Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations. August 1994. Draft of a book to be published by PWS Publishing Company, Boston.Google Scholar
- 10.John F. Sowa and Eileen C. Way. Implementing a semantic interpreter using conceptual graphs. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 30(1):57–69, January 1986.Google Scholar
- 11.Michel Wermelinger. Conceptual graphs and first-order logic. In Ellis et al. , pages 323–337.Google Scholar
- 12.Michel Wermelinger. Teoria básica das estruturas conceptuais. Master's thesis, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal, January 1995.Google Scholar
- 13.Michel Wermelinger and José Gabriel Lopes. Basic conceptual structures theory. In William M. Tepfenhart, Judith P. Dick, and John F. Sowa, editors, Conceptual Structures: Current Practices — Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Conceptual Structures, volume 835 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 144–159, College Park, USA, August 1994. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar