Advertisement

Logic of Relationships

  • Christophe Jouis
Part of the Information Science and Knowledge Management book series (ISKM, volume 3)

Abstract

A main goal of recent studies in semantics is to integrate into conceptual structures the models of representation used in linguistics, logic, and/or artificial intelligence. A fundamental problem resides in the need to structure knowledge and then to check the validity of constructed representations. We propose associating logical properties with relationships by introducing the relationships into a typed and functional system of specifications. This makes it possible to compare conceptual representations against the relationships established between the concepts. The mandatory condition to validate such a conceptual representation is consistency.

The semantic system proposed is based on a structured set of semantic primitives types, relations, and properties—based on a global model of language processing, Applicative and Cognitive Grammar (ACG) (Desclés, 1990), and an extension of this model to terminology (Jouis & Mustafa 1995, 1996, 1997). The ACG postulates three levels of representation of languages, including a cognitive level. At this level, the meanings of lexical predicates are represented by semantic cognitive schemes. From this perspective, we propose a set of semantic concepts, which defines an organized system of meanings.

Relations are part of a specification network based on a general terminological scheme (i.e., a coherent system of meanings of relations). In such a system, a specific relation may be characterized as to its: (1) functional type (the semantic type of arguments of the relation); (2) algebraic properties (reflexivity, symmetry, transitivity, etc.); and (3) combinatorial relations with other entities in the same context (for instance, the part of the text where a concept is defined).

Keywords

Distributive Classis Conceptual Structure Algebraic Property Cognitive Level Semantic Type 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abraham, M. (1995). Analyse Sémantico-Cognitive des Verbes de Mouvement et d’Activité: Contributions Méthodologique à la Constitution d’un Dictionnaire Informatique des Verbes. Doctoral dissertation, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales.Google Scholar
  2. Barbut, M. (1965). Topologie générale et algèbre de Kurarowski. Mathématiques et Sciences Humaines, 12, 11–27.Google Scholar
  3. Bean, C. (1996). Analysis of non-hierarchical associative relationships among Medical Subject Headings (MeSH): Anatomical and related terminology. Knowledge Organization and Change: Proceedings of the Fourth International ISKO Conference, 80–86.Google Scholar
  4. Biskri, I., & Desclés, J.-P. (1997). Applicative and Combinatorial Grammar: From Syntax to Functional Semantics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  5. Cantor, G. (1962). Gesammelte Abhandlungen (E. Zermelo, Ed.). Hildesheim: G. Olms. (Original work published 1932.)Google Scholar
  6. Culioli, A., & Desclés, J.-P. (1982). Traitement formel des langues naturelles. Mathématiques et Sciences Humaines, 77, 3–125;Google Scholar
  7. Culioli, A., & Desclés, J.-P. (1982). Traitement formel des langues naturelles. Mathématiques et Sciences Humaines, 78, 5–31.Google Scholar
  8. Curry, H., & Feys, R. (1958). Combinatory Logic (Volume I). Amsterdam: North-Holland.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Desclés, J.-P. (1990). Langages Applicatiffss, Langues Naturelles et Cognition. Paris: Hermes.Google Scholar
  10. Desclés J.-P. (1987). Réseaux sémantiques: La nature logique et linguistique des relateurs. Langages, 87, 55–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Felber, H. (1987). Manuel de Terminologie. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  12. Frege, G. (1964). Begriffsschrift und andere Aufssätze (I. Angelelli, Ed.; 2nd ed.). Hildesheim: G. Olms.Google Scholar
  13. Green, R. (1998). Attribution and relationality. Structures and Relations in Knowledge Organization: Proceedings of the Fifth International ISKO Conference, 328–335.Google Scholar
  14. Green, R. (1996). Development of a relational thesaurus. Knowledge Organization and Change: Proceedings of the Fourth International ISKO Conference, 72–79.Google Scholar
  15. Grize, J.-B. (1973). Logique Moderne (Fascicule II). Paris: Mouton/Gauthier-Villars.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Himsolt, M. (1994). GraphEd: A graphical platform for the implementation of graph algorithms. In R. Tamassia & I. G. Tollis (Eds.), Graph Drawing, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 894, 182–193.Google Scholar
  17. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (1990). Terminology — Vocabulary = Terminologie — Vocabulaire. Genève: Organisation internationale de normalisation. (ISO 1087–1990.)Google Scholar
  18. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (1987). Principes et Méthodes de la Terminologie. Genève: Organisation internationale de normalisation. (ISO 704–1987).Google Scholar
  19. Jouis, C. (1998). System of types + inter-concept relations properties: Towards validation of constructed terminologies? Structures and Relations in Knowledge Organization: Proceedings of the Fifth International ISKO Conference, 39–47.Google Scholar
  20. Jouis, C., & Mustafa-Elhadi, W. (1996). Vers un nouvel outil interactif d’aide à la conception de dictionnaires électroniques spécialisés. Lexicomatique et Dictionnairiques: IVes Journées Scientifiques du Réseau Thématique “Lexicologie, Terminologie, Traduction ”, 255–266. Beyrouth: AUPELF-UREF & F.M.A.Google Scholar
  21. Jouis, C., & Mustafa, W. (1995). Conceptual modeling of database sketch using linguistic knowledge: Application to terminological databases. Proceedings of the First Workshop on Applications of Natural Language to Data Bases, 103–118.Google Scholar
  22. Jouis, C. (1993). Contributions à la Conceptualisation et à la Modélisation des Connaissances à partir d’une Analyse Linguistique de Textes: Réalisation d’un Prototype: Le Système SEEK. Doctoral dissertation, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales.Google Scholar
  23. Kuratowski, K. (1958). Topologie (4th ed.). Warszawa: Panstwowe Wydawn. Naukowe.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Lejeune, N., & Van Campenhoudt, M. (1998). Modèle de données et validité structurelle des fiches terminologiques: L’expérience des microglossaires de TERMISTI. In Blanchon (Ed.), La Banque des Mots: Terminologie et Qualité, numéro spécial 8, 97–111.Google Scholar
  25. Lesniewski, S. (1989). Sur les fondements de la mathématique: Fragments (discussions préalables, méréologie, ontologie) (G. Kalinowski, Trans.). Paris: Hermés. (Original)Google Scholar
  26. Meyer, I., & Skuce (1998). Bases de connaissances et bases textuelles sur le web: Le système Ikarus. In A. Clas, S. Mejri, & T. Baccouche (Eds.), Vèmes Journées Scienti iques: La Mémoire des Mots, 637–646. Tunis and Montréal: AUPELF & F.M.A.Google Scholar
  27. Meyer, I., & Mchaffie, C. B. (1994). De la focalisation à l’amplication: Nouvelles perspectives de représentation des données terminologiques. In A. Clas & P. Bouillon, (Eds.), T..A.-T..A.O.: Recherches de Pointe et Applications Immédiates: Troisièmes Journées Scientifiques du Réseau Thématique de Recherche “Lexicologie, Terminologie et Traduction ”, 425–440. Montréal:AUPELF-UREF & F.M.A.Google Scholar
  28. Miéville, D. (1984). Un Développement des Systèmes Logiques de Stanislaw Lesniewski: Protothétique, Ontologie, Méréologie. Bern, Frankfurt am Main, and New York: P. Lang.Google Scholar
  29. Miller, G. A. (1990). Nouns in WordNet: A lexical inheritance system. International Journal of Lexicography. 3, 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Molholt, P. (1996). Standardization of interconcept links and their usage. Knowledge Organization and Change: Proceedings of the Fourth InternationalISKO Conference, 65–71.Google Scholar
  31. Mustafa-Elhadi, W., & Jouis, C. (1996). Evaluating natural language processing systems as a tool for building terminological databases. Knowledge Organization and Change: Proceedings of the Fourth International ISKO Conference, 346–355.Google Scholar
  32. Mustafa, W., & Jouis, C. (1997). Natural language processing-based techniques and their use in data modelling and information retrieval. Knowledge Organization for Information Retrieval: Proceedings of the Sixth International Study Conference on Classi ication Research, 157–161. The Hague: FID.Google Scholar
  33. Shaumyan, S. (1987). A Semiotic Theory ofLanguage. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  34. Sowa, J. F. (1984). Conceptual Structures: Information Processing In Mind And Machine. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Sowa, J. F. (1996, August). Ontologies for knowledge sharing. Paper presented at Terminology and Knowledge Engineering ’96) Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  36. Sowa, J. F. (2000). Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  37. Van Campenhoudt, M. (1998). Abrégé de Terminologie Multilingue [On-line] . Available: < http://www.termisti.refer.org/marcweb.htm> [2001, October 9].Google Scholar
  38. Van Campenhoudt, M. (1994). Les relations notionnelles expérimentées dans les microglossaires de TERMISTI: Du foisonnement à la régularité. In A. Clas & P. Bouillon, (Eds.), T..A.-T..A.O.: Recherches de Pointe et Applications Immédiates: Troisièmes Journées Scienti iques du Réseau Thématique de Recherche “Lexicologie, Terminologie et Traduction” , 409–423. Montréal and Beyrouth : AUPELF-UREF & F.M.A.Google Scholar
  39. Whitehead, A. N., & Russell, B. (1927). Principia Mathematica (2nd ed.). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. Wielinga, B., Schreiber, A., & Breuker, J. (1992). KADS: A modeling approach to knowledge engineering. Knowledge Acquisition, 4 (1), 5–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Winston, M. E., Chaffin, R., & Herrmann, D. (1987). A taxonomy of part-whole relations. Cognitive Science, 11, 417–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christophe Jouis
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Université Paris - Sorbonne NouvelleParisFrance
  2. 2.CAMS (Centre d’Analyse et de Mathématiques Sociales): CNRS, EHESS, Paris - SorbonneParisFrance

Personalised recommendations