Abstract
The paper considers an approach to solving the problem of supporting the semantic stability of information system (IS) objects. A set of IS objects is addressed as a semantic network consisting of concepts and frames. The interpretation that assigns intensional (meaning) and extensional (value) characteristics to network designs is connected to the constructions of the semantic network. The interpretation in the general case depends on the interpreting subject, time, context, which can be considered as parameters. The possibility to preset a consistent interpretation for a given semantic network is regarded as a semantic integrity, and the possibility to control changes in interpretation when the parameter is changed is regarded as semantic stability. Among the tasks related to supporting semantic stability, the problem of modelling evolutionary concepts (EC) is highlighted. It is proposed to construct a computational model of EC based on the theory of categories with a significant use of the concept of variable domain. The model is constructed as a category of functors, and it is shown that the Cartesian closure of the basic category implies Cartesian closure of the category of models. The structure of the exponential object of the category of models has been studied, and it is shown that its correct construction requires taking into account the evolution of concepts. The testing of the model’s constructions was carried out when lining the means of semantic support for the implementation of the best available technologies (BAT).
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
References
Atzeni, P., et al.: The relational model is dead, SQL is dead, and I don’t feel so good myself. SIGMOD Rec 42(1), 64–68 (2013)
Chernyshov, A., Balandina, A., Kostkina, A., Klimov, V.: Intelligence search engine and automatic integration system for web-services and cloud-based data providers based on semantics. Procedia Comput. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.07.449
Wolfengagen, V.E., Ismailova, L.Y., et al.: Evolutionary domains for varying individuals. Procedia Computer Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.07.447
Cuzzocrea, A., Sellis, T.: Semantics-aware approaches to big data engineering. J. Data Semant. 6(2), 55–56 (2017)
Ismailova, L.: Criteria for computational thinking in information and computational technologies. Life Sci. J. 11(9s), 415–420 (2014)
Castro,G., Costa, B.: Using data provenance to improve software process enactment, monitoring and analysis. In: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion, ICSE 2016, pp. 875-878. ACM, New York (2016)
Wolfengagen, V., et al.: Migration of the Individuals. Procedia Computer Science 88, 359–364 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.07.449
Comyn-Wattiau, I. et al.: Conceptual Modeling, Proceedings of 35th International Conference ER 2016, Gifu, Japan, November 14-17, 2016. LNCS, vol. 9974. Springer (2016)
Population Modeling Working Group. Population modeling by examples (wip). In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Modeling and Simulation in Medicine, MSM 2015, pp. 61–66. Society for Computer Simulation International, San Diego (2015)
Wolfengagen, V.E., Ismailova, L.Y., Kosikov, S.V.: Computational model of the tangled web. Procedia Comput. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.07.440
Scott, D.: Advice in modal logic. In: Lambert, K. (ed.) Philosophical Problems in Logic. Reidel (1970)
Scott, D.S.: Relating theories of the lambda calculus. In: Hindley, J., Seldin, J. (eds.) To H.B.Curry: Essays on Combinatory Logic, Lambda Calculus and Formalism, pp. 403-450. Academic Press, New York (1980)
Scott, D.: The lattice of flow diagrams. In: Symposium on Semantics of Algorithmic Languages, pp. 311-366. Springer (1971)
Acknoledgements
Authors acknowledge support from the MEPhI Academic Excellence Project (Contract No. 02.a03.21.0005). The research is supported in part by the RFBR grant 15-07-06898.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
The appendix contains proofs of the properties of the defined constructions.
The Cartesian Product in the Category Set. Category Set of sets is cartesian. Cartesian products in it are built as usual as sets of pairs: if A and B are two sets (objects of category Set), their cartesian product is a set \(\{(a, b)| a \in A, b \in B\}\). Projections are defined by the natural way:
The arrow of pair evaluation \(\langle {f, g}\rangle \) for \(f : C \rightarrow A\), \(g : C \rightarrow B\) is defined so:
where \(c \in C\). It is easy to check that the product of arrows is evaluated so:
The Properties of the Cartesian Product. 1. \(U \times V\) preserves the composition. Really,
2. \(U \times V\) preserves the unit arrows. Really,
So \(U \times V\) is really a functor. We verify now that p and q are natural transformations. So we check the condition of naturality
The condition satisfies so p is really a natural transformation. The check for q is analogous. This check shows that projections in Set are defined really naturally.
We can make the evaluations above also in terms of restriction mappings. The indexes of objects can be reconstructed in a unique way, and so they can be omitted because of natural property of the projection.
The Properties of the Pairing. We check that defined arrow is a natural transformation, i.e. check the naturality condition:
The condition is satisfied, so the natural transformation \(\langle {\mu , \nu }\rangle \) is defined correctly.
Now we have to check the characteristic properties of the projection and pairing. We show now that \(p \circ \langle {\mu , \nu }\rangle = \mu \). We calculate a component \((p \circ \langle {\mu , \nu }\rangle )A\) and see that it is equal to ?A. We have
So components of \(p \circ \langle {\mu , \nu }\rangle \) are really identical with components of \(\mu \) and so \(p \circ \langle {\mu , \nu }\rangle = \mu \). We show now that \(\langle {p \circ \eta , q \circ \eta }\rangle = \eta \), where \(\eta : W \rightarrow (U \times V)\). We have
So this characteristic property is also satisfied.
The Properties of the Exponential. We have defined the object and arrow mappings for the functor. Now we check that this is really a functor. We must check the composition preservation property
and the unit preservation property
We begin with the composition. Let \(f: B \rightarrow A\) and \(g: C \rightarrow B\). Then
The elements of \((U \rightarrow V)A\) are the families \(\varphi \) of mappings. For the comparison of these families we apply them to the arrow \(h: D \rightarrow C\). Then
and
The property of the unit preservation can be checked in the similar way.
The Properties of the Currying. We check the functor character of the defined mapping. We have
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Kosikov, S.V., Wolfengagen, V.E., Ismailova, L.Y. (2018). The Presentation of Evolutionary Concepts. In: Samsonovich, A., Klimov, V. (eds) Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures (BICA) for Young Scientists. BICA 2017. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 636. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63940-6_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63940-6_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-63939-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-63940-6
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)