Advertisement

KR Vocabulary and Languages

  • Michael K. Bergman
Chapter

Abstract

Knowledge representation involves a trade-off in expressivity and practicality. Knowledge graphs and knowledge bases need to be comprehensive for their applicable domains of use, populated with ‘vivid’ knowledge. Specifying all knowledge interactions is neither feasible nor computationally tractable. We use formalisms and logic to infer many relationships and to entail implications. We use deductive reasoning to infer hierarchical relationships, create forward and backward chains, check if domains and ranges are consistent for assertions, assemble attributes applicable to classes based on member attributes, conform with transitivity and cardinality assertions, and check virtually all statements of fact within a knowledge base. As inductive and abductive reasoners become available, they will expand this list of capabilities to include question answering, hypothesis generation and testing, forecasting, decision-making, and real-time systems in robotics. Abductive reasoning must be pragmatic to screen among the many combinatorial options; Peirce advocates paths for identifying qualifying candidates based on plausibility, economy, and potential impact. We want a knowledge representation (KR) language that can model and capture intensional and extensional relations, one that potentially embraces all three kinds of inferential logic; one that is decidable; one that is compatible with a design reflective of particulars and generals; and one that is open world in keeping with the nature of knowledge. Our choice for the knowledge graph is the W3C standard of OWL 2 (the Web Ontology Language). Our choice for data representation and exchange is RDF (Resource Description Framework).

Keywords

RDF OWL Vocabulary 

References

  1. 1.
    R. Davis, H. Shrobe, P. Szolovits, What is a knowledge representation? AI Mag. 14, 17 (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M.K. Bergman, The rationale for semantic technologies, in AI3:::Adaptive Information (July 2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. Huber, Formal representations of belief, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Oct. 2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    W. Roche, Coherence and probability: A probabilistic account of coherence, in Coherence: Insights from Philosophy, Jurisprudence and Artificial Intelligence (Springer, Dordrecht, 2013), pp. 59–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    I. Douven, W. Meijs, Measuring coherence. Synthese 156, 405–425 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    R.J. Brachman, H.J. Levesque, Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, 2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    H.J. Levesque, Making believers out of computers. Artif. Intell. 30, 81–108 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    H.J. Levesque, R.J. Brachman, Expressiveness and tractability in knowledge representation and reasoning. Comput. Intell. 3, 78–93 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Y. Zhou, A Set Theoretic Approach for Knowledge Representation: the Representation Part, arXiv, vol. 1603 (Mar. 2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J.F. Sowa, Conceptual Graph Summary. http://www.jfsowa.com/cg/cgif.htm
  11. 11.
    E. Patterson, Knowledge Representation in Bicategories of Relations, arXiv, vol. 1706 (June 2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. Sdrolia, Signifying Nature: Semeiosis as the Foundation of Post-Critical Cosmology in Charles S. Peirce (Goldsmiths, University of London, London, 2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    W. Staat, On abduction, deduction, induction and the categories. Trans. Charles S. Peirce Soc. 29, 225–237 (1993)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Muggleton, Inductive logic programming. New Generation Comput. 8, 295–318 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    C. d’Amato, N. Fanizzi, B. Fazzinga, G. Gottlob, T. Lukasiewicz, Combining semantic web search with the power of inductive reasoning, in International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (Springer, Berlin, 2010), pp. 137–150Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    L. De Raedt, Logical and Relational Learning (Springer Science & Business Media, Heidelberg, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Völker, M. Niepert, Statistical Schema Induction, in The Semantic Web: Research and Applications (2011), pp. 124–138Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D. McGuiness, D. Nardi, P. Patel-Schneider, The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extension_(semantics), retrieved December 6, 2017
  20. 20.
    B. Motik, P.F. Patel-Schneider, B.C. Grau, OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Direct Semantics (Second Edition), World Wide Web Consortium (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    L. Feigenbaum, E. Prud’hommeaux SPARQL by Example, Cambridge Semantics (May 2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference: W3C Recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    C.S. Peirce, The Logic of Relatives, The Monist (1897), pp. 161–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    J.J. Zeman, The Graphical Logic of CS Peirce, Ph.D., University of Chicago (1964)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations