Potential Uses in Depth

  • Michael K. Bergman


The three areas covered in depth in this chapter are workflows and business process management (BPM), semantic parsing, and robotics. The production and consumption of knowledge should warrant as much attention as do the actions or processes on the factory floor. Workflows are a visible gap in most knowledge management. A reason for the gap is that workflows and business processes intimately involve people. Shared communication is at the heart of workflow management, a reason why semantic technologies are essential to the task. In semantic parsing, a lexical theory needs to handle word senses, sentences and semantics, cross-language meanings, common-sense reasoning, and learning algorithms. A formal grammar provides a set of transition rules for evaluating tokens and a lexicon of types that can build up, or generate, representative language structures. We can map the compositional and semantic aspects of our language to the categorial perspectives of Peirce’s logic and semiosis, and then convert those formalisms to distributions over broad examples provided by KBpedia’s knowledge. Peircean ideas may contribute to part-of-speech tagging, machine learning implementations, and a dedicated Peircean grammar. Cognitive robots embrace the ideas of learning and planning and interacting with a dynamic world. Robotics is a critical potential testbed for Peircean ideas. Robots, to conduct actions, must resolve or ‘ground’ their reasoning symbols into indecomposable primitives. The implication is that higher order concepts are derivations in some manner of lower level concepts, which fits KBpedia and Peirce’s universal categories. Kinesthetic robots may also be essential to refine natural language understanding.


Applications Workflow Business process management Semantic parsing Cognitive robotics 


  1. 1.
    M. Hepp, F. Leymann, J. Domingue, A. Wahler, D. Fensel, in e-Business Engineering. Semantic business process management: A vision towards using semantic web services for business process management (IEEE, Beijing, China, 2005), pp. 535–540Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    F. Smith, M. Proietti, Ontology-based representation and reasoning on process models: A logic programming approach, arXiv:1410.1776 [cs] (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Kornai, Mathematical Linguistics (Springer, London, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Lambek, From Word to Sentence: A Computational Algebraic Approach to Grammar, Polimetrica sas (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Lange, H. Leiß, To CNF or not to CNF? An efficient yet presentable version of the CYK algorithm. Informatica Didactica 8, 1–21 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Copestake, D. Flickinger, C. Pollard, I.A. Sag, Minimal recursion semantics: An introduction. Res. Lang. Comput. 3, 281–332 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Steedman, A Very Short Introduction to CCG. Unpublished draft note (1996), p. 8Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Bos, A survey of computational semantics: Representation, inference and knowledge in wide-coverage text understanding. Lang. Linguist. Compass 5, 336–366 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Liang, Learning executable semantic parsers for natural language understanding, arXiv:1603.06677 [cs] (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    B.H. Partee, Montague grammar, ed. by N.J. Smelser and P.B. Bates, in International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (Pergamon/Elsevier Science, Oxford, 2001). p. 7 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Wierzbicka, Semantics: Primes and Universals (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    L. Abzianidze, J. Bos, Towards Universal Semantic Tagging, arXiv:1709.10381 [cs] (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Hassan, Measuring Semantic Relatedness Using Salient Encyclopedic Concepts. Ph.D., University of North Texas (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    P.P.-S. Chen, English, Chinese and ER diagrams. Data Knowl. Eng. 23, 5–16 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Ninio, Learning a generative syntax from transparent syntactic atoms in the linguistic input. J. Child Lang. 41, 1249–1275 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    W. Nöth, Charles Sanders Peirce, pathfinder in linguistics, in Digital Encyclopedia of Charles S. Peirce (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A.-V. Pietarinen, Peirce’s pragmatic theory of proper names. Trans. Charles S. Peirce Soc. 46, 341 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    W. Nöth, Representation and reference according to Peirce. Int. J. Signs Semiotic Syst. 1, 28–39 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. Hilpinen, On CS Peirce’s theory of the proposition: Peirce as a precursor of game-theoretical semantics. Monist 65, 182–188 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. Sarbo, J. Farkas, A Peircean ontology of language, in International Conference on Conceptual Structures (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2001), pp. 1–14Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    T. Kwiatkowski, E. Choi, Y. Artzi, L. Zettlemoyer, Scaling semantic parsers with on-the-fly ontology matching, in Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (Association for Computational Linguistics, Seattle, WA, 2013), pp. 1545–1556Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    S. Clark, Type-driven syntax and semantics for composing meaning vectors, in Quantum Physics and Linguistics: A Compositional, Diagrammatic Discourse (2013), pp. 359–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. Maillard, S. Clark, E. Grefenstette, A Type-Driven Tensor-Based Semantics for CCG (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2014), pp. 46–54Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    E. Grefenstette, Category-Theoretic Quantitative Compositional Distributional Models of Natural Language Semantics. Ph.D., Balliol College, University of Oxford (2013)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    M. Gardner, J. Krishnamurthy, Open-vocabulary semantic parsing with both distributional statistics and formal knowledge, in Proceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-17). (Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, 2017), pp. 3195–3201Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    T.A.D. Fowler, Lambek Categorial Grammars for Practical Parsing. Ph.D., University of Toronto (2016)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    P. Liang, C. Potts, Bringing machine learning and compositional semantics together. Ann. Rev. Linguist. 1, 355–376 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    P. Suppes, Direct inference in English. Teach. Philos. 4, 405–418 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    C.H. Brink, The Algebra of Relations. Ph.D., University of Cambridge (1978)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    C.S. Peirce, Description of a notation for the logic of relatives, resulting from an amplification of the conceptions of Boole’s calculus of logic. Mem. Am. Acad. Arts Sci. 9, 317–378 (1870)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    C. Brink, The algebra of relatives. Notre Dame J. Form. Logic XX, 900–908 (1979)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    C. Brink, R.A. Schmidt, Subsumption computed algebraically. Comput. Math. Appl. 23, 329–342 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    M. de Rijke, Extending Modal Logic. Ph.D., Universiteit van Amsterdam, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation (1993)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    M. Böttner, Peirce grammar. Grammars 4, 1–19 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    H. Leiß, The proper treatment of coordination in Peirce grammar, in Proceedings of FG-MoL 2005. (Edinburgh, Scotland, 2009), pp. 149–166Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    M. Scheutz, J. Harris, P. Schermerhorn, Systematic integration of cognitive and robotic architectures. Adv. Cogn. Syst. 2, 277–296 (2013)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    P. Steiner, CS Peirce and Artificial Intelligence: Historical heritage and (new) theoretical stakes, in Philosophy and Theory of Artificial Intelligence (Springer, New York, 2013), pp. 265–276Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    L. Shapiro, The embodied cognition research programme. Philos. Compass 2, 338–346 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    P. Chiasson, Logica Utens, in Digital Encyclopedia of Charles S. Peirce (2001)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    C. Matuszek, E. Herbst, L. Zettlemoyer, D. Fox, Learning to parse natural language commands to a robot control system, in Experimental robotics (Springer, Heidelberg, 2013), pp. 403–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    A. Cangelosi, Solutions and open challenges for the symbol grounding problem. Int. J. Signs Semiotic Syst. 1, 49–54 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    D. Roy, Semiotic schemas: A framework for grounding language in action and perception. Artif. Intell. 167, 170–205 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    M.-A. Williams, Representation = grounded information, in Trends in Artificial Intelligence, ed. by T.-B. Ho, Z.-H. Zhou (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008), pp. 473–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    D. Roy, A mechanistic model of three facets of meaning, in Symbols and Embodiment: Debates on Meaning and Cognition, ed. by M.D. Vega, A.M. Glenberg, A.C. Graesser (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008), pp. 195–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    C.J. Stanton, The value of meaning for autonomous robots, in Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Epigenetic Robotics: Modeling Cognitive Development in Robotic Systems, ed. by B. Johansson, E. Sahin, C. Balkenius (Lund University, Lund, 2010), pp. 129–136Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    T. Taniguchi, T. Nagai, T. Nakamura, N. Iwahashi, T. Ogata, H. Asoh, Symbol emergence in robotics: A survey. Adv. Robot. 30, 706–728 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    R. Gudwin, The icon grounding problem. Int. J. Signs Semiotic Syst. 1, 73–74 (2011)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    G.I. Parisi, J. Tani, C. Weber, S. Wermter, Emergence of multimodal action representations from neural network self-organization. Cogn. Syst. Res. 43, 208–221 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    J. Nivre, Dependency Grammar and Dependency Parsing (Växjö University, Växjö, 2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    M. Ringgaard, R. Gupta, F.C.N. Pereira, Sling: A framework for frame semantic parsing. arXiv:1710.07032 [cs] (2017)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    B. Coecke, M. Sadrzadeh, S. Clark, Mathematical foundations for a compositional distributional model of meaning. Linguist. Anal. 36, 345–384 (2010)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    S.C.B. Coecke, M. Sadrzadeh, A compositional distributional model of meaning, in Proceedings of the Second Quantum Interaction Symposium (QI-2008) (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008), pp. 133–140Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    J.R. Hobbs, S.J. Rosenschein, Making computational sense of Montague’s intensional logic. Artif. Intell. 9, 287–306 (1977)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    A. K. Joshi, Context-sensitive grammars, in Oxford International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, 2nd Edition (K. Vijay-Shanker and D. Weir, eds., Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2003), pp. 1–4Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael K. Bergman
    • 1
  1. 1.Cognonto CorporationCoralvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations