Advertisement

Concepts in Application Context

  • Steffen StaabEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11511)

Abstract

Formal concept analysis (FCA) derives a hierarchy of concepts in a formal context that relates objects with attributes. This approach is very well aligned with the traditions of Frege, Saussure and Peirce, which relate a signifier (e.g. a word/an attribute) to a mental concept evoked by this word and meant to refer to a specific object in the real world. However, in the practice of natural languages as well as artificial languages (e.g. programming languages), the application context often constitutes a latent variable that influences the interpretation of a signifier. We present some of our current work that analyzes the usage of words in natural language in varying application contexts as well as the usage of variables in programming languages in varying application contexts in order to provide conceptual constraints on these signifiers.

Keywords

FCA Semantics Programming Word embeddings 

References

  1. 1.
    Sparql 1.1 query language. Technical report, W3C Recommendation, 21 March 2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/
  2. 2.
    Baader, F., Horrocks, I., Lutz, C., Sattler, U.: Introduction to Description Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cimiano, P., Hotho, A., Staab, S.: Learning concept hierarchies from text corpora using formal concept analysis. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 24, 305–339 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Devlin, J., Chang, M., Lee, K., Toutanova, K.: BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. CoRR abs/1810.04805 (2018). http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805
  5. 5.
    Hesse, W., Tilley, T.: Formal concept analysis used for software analysis and modelling. In: Ganter, B., Stumme, G., Wille, R. (eds.) Formal Concept Analysis. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3626, pp. 288–303. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11528784_15CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leinberger, M., Lämmel, R., Staab, S.: The essence of functional programming on semantic data. In: Yang, H. (ed.) ESOP 2017. LNCS, vol. 10201, pp. 750–776. Springer, Heidelberg (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54434-1_28CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lin, D., Pantel, P.: Induction of semantic classes from natural language text. In: Proceedings of the Seventh ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, CA, USA, 26–29 August 2001, pp. 317–322 (2001). http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=502512.502558
  8. 8.
    Meijer, E., Beckman, B., Bierman, G.M.: LINQ: reconciling object, relations and XML in the .net framework. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 27–29 June 2006, p. 706 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1145/1142473.1142552
  9. 9.
    Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G.S., Dean, J.: Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In: 27th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, United States, 5–8 December 2013, pp. 3111–3119 (2013). http://papers.nips.cc/paper/5021-distributed-representations-of-words-and-phrases-and-their-compositionality
  10. 10.
    Peters, M.E., et al.: Deep contextualized word representations. In: Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2018, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 1–6 June 2018, vol. 1 (Long Papers), pp. 2227–2237 (2018). https://aclanthology.info/papers/N18-1202/n18-1202
  11. 11.
    Schmelzeisen, L., Staab, S.: Learning taxonomies of concepts and not words using contextualized word representations: a position paper. CoRR abs/1902.02169 (2019). http://arxiv.org/abs/1902.02169
  12. 12.
    Seifer, P., Leinberger, M., Lämmel, R., Staab, S.: Semantic query integration with reason. Art Sci. Eng. Program. 3(3) (2019).  https://doi.org/10.22152/programming-journal.org/2019/3/13
  13. 13.
    Sertkaya, B.: A survey on how description logic ontologies benefit from FCA. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Concept Lattices and Their Applications, Sevilla, Spain, 19–21 October 2010, pp. 2–21 (2010). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-672/paper2.pdf
  14. 14.
    Snelting, G.: Concept lattices in software analysis. In: Ganter, B., Stumme, G., Wille, R. (eds.) Formal Concept Analysis. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3626, pp. 272–287. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11528784_14CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wille, R.: Restructuring lattice theory: an approach based on hierarchies of concepts. In: Rival, I. (ed.) Ordered Sets, vol. 83, pp. 445–470. Springer, Dordrecht (1982).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-7798-3_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Web Science and TechnologiesUniversität Koblenz-LandauKoblenzGermany
  2. 2.WAIS Research GroupUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations