Abstract
A key component of computational diagrammatic reasoning is the automated interpretation of diagram notations. One common and successful approach to this is based on attributed multiset grammars. The disadvantages of grammars are, however, that they do not allow ready integration of semantic information and that the underlying theory is not strongly developed. Therefore, embeddings of grammars into first-order logic have been investigated. Unfortunately, these are unsatisfactory: Either they are complex and unnatural or else, because of the monotonicity of classical first-order logic, cannot handle diagrammatic reasoning. We investigate the use of two non-standard logics, namely linear logic and situation theory, for the formalization of diagram interpretation and reasoning. The chief advantage of linear logic is that it is a resource-oriented logic, which renders the embedding of grammars straightforward. Situation theory, on the other hand, has been designed for capturing the semantics of natural language and offers powerful methods for modelling more complex aspects of language, such as incomplete views of the world. The paper illustrates embeddings of grammar-based interpretation into both formalisms and also discusses their integration.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
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
A.W. Black. A Situation Theoretic Approach to Computational Semantics. PhD thesis, Dept. of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, 1992.
J. Barwise and J. Perry. Situations and Attitudes. MIT Press, 1983.
J. Barwise and J. Seligman. Information Flow: The Logic of Distributed Systems. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1997.
R. Cooper. Three lectures on situation theoretic grammar In Natural Language Processing: EAIA 90, pages 102–140, Guarda, October 1990.
J. M. Gooday and A. G. Cohn. Using spatial logic to describe visual programming languages. Artificial Intelligence Review, 10:171–186, 1996.
J.-Y. Girard. Linear logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 50:1–102, 1987.
J.-Y. Girard. Linear logic: A survey. Technical report, Int. Summer School on Logic and Algebra of Specification, 1991.
V. Haarslev. A fully formalized theory for describing visual notations. In K. Marriott and B. Meyer, editors, Visual Language Theory, pages 261–292. Springer, New York, 1998.
R. Helm and K. Marriott. A declarative specification and semantics for visual languages. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 2:311–331, 1991.
R. Helm, K. Marriott, and M. Odersky. Building visual language parsers. In ACM Conf. Human Factors in Computing, pages 118–125, 1991.
K. Marriott. Constraint multiset grammars. In IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, pages 118–125. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1994.
B. Meyer. Formalization of visual mathematical notations. In M. Anderson, editor, AAAI Symposium on Diagrammatic Reasoning (DR-II), pages 58–68, Boston/MA, November 1997. AAAI Press.
B. Meyer. A constraint-based framework for diagrammatic reasoning. Applied Artificial Intelligence: An International Journal. Special Issue on Constraint Handling Rules, 4(14):327–344, 2000.
B. Meyer and K. Marriott. Specifying diagram animation with rewrite systems. In International Workshop on Theory of Visual Languages (TVL’97), pages 85–96, Capri, Italy, September 1997.
B. Meyer, K. Marriott, and G. Allwein. Intelligent diagrammatic interfaces: State of the art. In P. Olivier, M. Anderson, and B. Meyer, editors, Diagrammatic Representation and Reasoning. Springer, London, 2000. To appear.
K. Marriott, B. Meyer, and K. Wittenburg. A survey of visual language specification and recognition. In K. Marriott and B. Meyer, editors, Visual Language Theory, pages 5–85. Springer, New York, 1998.
F. C. N. Pereira and David H. D. Warren. Definite clause grammars for language analysis-a survey of the formalism and a comparison with augmented transition networks. Artificial Intelligence, 13:231–278, 1980.
R. Reiter and A. K. Mackworth. A logical framework for depiction and image interpretation. Artificial Intelligence, 41:125–155, 1989.
A. Shimojima. Operational constraints in diagrammatic reasoning. In G. Allwein and J. Barwise, editors, Logical Reasoning with Diagrams, pages 27–48. Oxford University Press, New York, 1996.
S.-J. Shin. A situation theoretic account of valid reasoning with Venn diagrams. In G. Allwein and J. Barwise, editors, Logical Reasoning with Diagrams, pages 81–108. Oxford University Press, New York, 1996.
J. Seligman and L. S. Moss. Situation theory. In J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen, editors, Handbook of Logic & Language. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1997.
T. Tanaka. Definite clause set grammars: A formalism for problem solving. Journal of Logic Programming, 10:1–17, 1991.
M. Wollowski. DIAPLAN: A decidable diagrammatic proof system for planning in the blocks world. PhD thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington, 1998.
W. A. Woods and J. G. Schmolze. The KL-ONE family. In F. Lehmann, editor, Semantic Networks in Artificial Intelligence, pages 133–177. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1992.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Marriott, K., Meyer, B. (2000). Non-standard Logics for Diagram Interpretation. In: Anderson, M., Cheng, P., Haarslev, V. (eds) Theory and Application of Diagrams. Diagrams 2000. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 1889. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44590-0_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44590-0_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-67915-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44590-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive