Abstract
The problem of concept representation is relevant for knowledge engineering and for ontology-based technologies. However, the notion of concept itself turns out to be highly disputed and problematic in cognitive science. In our opinion, one of the causes of this state of affairs is that the notion of concept is in some sense heterogeneous, and encompasses different cognitive phenomena. This results in a strain between conflicting requirements, such as, for example, compositionality on the one side and the need of representing prototypical information on the other. AI research in some way shows traces of this situation. In this paper we propose an analysis of this state of affairs, and we sketch some proposals for concept representation in formal ontologies which take advantage from suggestions coming from cognitive science and psychological research. In particular we take into account the distinction between prototype and exemplar accounts in explaining prototypical effects.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Dell’Anna, A., Frixione, M.: On the advantage (if any) and disadvantage of the conceptual/nonconceptual distinction for cognitive science. Minds & Machines 20, 29–45 (2010)
Frixione, M., Lieto, A.: The computational representation of concepts in formal ontologies: Some general considerations. In: Proc. KEOD 2010, Int. Conf. on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development, Valencia, Spain, October 25-28 (2010)
Frixione, M., Lieto, A.: Representing concepts in artificial systems: a clash of requirements. In: Proc. HCP 2011, pp. 75–82 (2011)
Fodor, J.: The present status of the innateness controversy. J. Fodor, Representations (1981)
Minsky, M.: A framework for representing knowledge, in Patrick Winston (a cura di), The Psychology of Computer Vision (1975); Also in Brachman & Levesque (2005)
Brachman, R., Schmolze, J.G.: An overview of the KL-ONE knowledge representation system. Cognitive Science 9, 171–216 (1985)
Brachman, R., Levesque, H. (eds.): Readings in Knowledge Representation. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos (1985)
Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.: The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementations and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)
Brachman, R.: I lied about the trees. The AI Magazine 3(6), 80–95 (1985)
Gao, M., Liu, C.: Extending OWL by fuzzy Description Logic. In: Proc. 17th IEEE Int. Conf. on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI 2005), pp. 562–567. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2005)
Calegari, S., Ciucci, D.: Fuzzy Ontology, Fuzzy Description Logics and Fuzzy-OWL. In: Masulli, F., Mitra, S., Pasi, G. (eds.) WILF 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4578, pp. 118–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Stoilos, G., Stamou, G., Tzouvaras, V., Pan, J.Z., Horrocks, I.: Fuzzy OWL: Uncertainty and the Semantic Web. In: Proc. Workshop on OWL: Experience and Directions (OWLED 2005). CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 188 (2005)
Bobillo, F., Straccia, U.: An OWL Ontology for Fuzzy OWL 2. In: Rauch, J., Raś, Z.W., Berka, P., Elomaa, T. (eds.) ISMIS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5722, pp. 151–160. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Osherson, D.N., Smith, E.E.: On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts. Cognition 11, 237–262 (1981)
Lukasiewicz, L., Straccia, U.: Managing uncertainty and vagueness in description logics for the Semantic Web. Journal of Web Semantics 6, 291–308 (2008)
Ding, Z., Peng, Y., Pan, R.: BayesOWL: Uncertainty modeling in Semantic Web ontologies. In: Ma, Z. (ed.) Soft Computing in Ontologies and Semantic Web. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, vol. 204. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Baader, F., Hollunder, B.: Embedding defaults into terminological knowledge representation formalisms. J. Autom. Reasoning 14(1), 149–180 (1995)
Bonatti, P.A., Lutz, C., Wolter, F.: Description logics with circumscription. In: Proc. of KR, pp. 400–410 (2006)
Klinov, P., Parsia, B.: Optimization and evaluation of reasoning in probabilistic description logic: Towards a systematic approach. In: Sheth, A.P., Staab, S., Dean, M., Paolucci, M., Maynard, D., Finin, T., Thirunarayan, K. (eds.) ISWC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5318, pp. 213–228. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Hayes, P.: Dialogue on rdf-logic. Why must the web be monotonic? (W3C). Link (2001), http://lists.w3.org/Archives/public/www-rdf-logic/2001Jul/0067.html
Stanovich, K.E., West, R.: Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for the Rationality Debate? The Behavioural and Brain Sciences 23(5), 645–665 (2000)
Evans, J.S.B.T., Frankish, K. (eds.): In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond. Oxford UP, New York (2008)
Murphy, G.L.: The Big Book of Concepts. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)
Margolis, E., Laurence, S. (eds.): Concepts: Core Readings. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)
Laurence, S., Margolis, E.: Review. Concepts: where cognitive science went wrong. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50(3), 487–491 (1999)
Fodor, J.: Psychosemantics. The MIT Press/A Bradford Book, Cambridge, MA (1987)
Fodor, J.: Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1998)
Machery, E.: Doing without Concepts. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009)
Rosch, E.: Principles of categorization. In: Rosch, E., Lloyd, B. (eds.) Cognition and Categorization, pp. 27–48. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1978)
Gagliardi, F.: A Prototype-Exemplars Hybrid Cognitive Model of “Phenomenon of Typicality” in Categorization: A Case Study in Biological Classification. In: Proc. 30th Annual Conf. of the Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX, pp. 1176–1181 (2008)
Witten, I.H., Frank, E.: Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques with Java Implementations, 2nd edn., Kaufmann, San Francisco(2005)
Gagliardi, F.: The Need of an Interdisciplinary Approach based on Computational Modelling in the Study of Categorization. In: Proc. of ICCM 2009, pp. 492–493 (2009)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Frixione, M., Lieto, A. (2011). Formal Ontologies, Exemplars, Prototypes. In: De Troyer, O., Bauzer Medeiros, C., Billen, R., Hallot, P., Simitsis, A., Van Mingroot, H. (eds) Advances in Conceptual Modeling. Recent Developments and New Directions. ER 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6999. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24574-9_27
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24574-9_27
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-24573-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-24574-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)