Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Formal Ontologies, Exemplars, Prototypes

  • Conference paper
Advances in Conceptual Modeling. Recent Developments and New Directions (ER 2011)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 6999))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1054 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Frixione, M., Lieto, A.: Representing concepts in artificial systems: a clash of requirements. In: Proc. HCP 2011, pp. 75–82 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fodor, J.: The present status of the innateness controversy. J. Fodor, Representations (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Minsky, M.: A framework for representing knowledge, in Patrick Winston (a cura di), The Psychology of Computer Vision (1975); Also in Brachman & Levesque (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brachman, R., Schmolze, J.G.: An overview of the KL-ONE knowledge representation system. Cognitive Science 9, 171–216 (1985)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brachman, R., Levesque, H. (eds.): Readings in Knowledge Representation. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos (1985)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.: The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementations and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Brachman, R.: I lied about the trees. The AI Magazine 3(6), 80–95 (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  10. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  11. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  13. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Osherson, D.N., Smith, E.E.: On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts. Cognition 11, 237–262 (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lukasiewicz, L., Straccia, U.: Managing uncertainty and vagueness in description logics for the Semantic Web. Journal of Web Semantics 6, 291–308 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Baader, F., Hollunder, B.: Embedding defaults into terminological knowledge representation formalisms. J. Autom. Reasoning 14(1), 149–180 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Bonatti, P.A., Lutz, C., Wolter, F.: Description logics with circumscription. In: Proc. of KR, pp. 400–410 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  19. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. 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

  21. Stanovich, K.E., West, R.: Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for the Rationality Debate? The Behavioural and Brain Sciences 23(5), 645–665 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Evans, J.S.B.T., Frankish, K. (eds.): In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond. Oxford UP, New York (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Murphy, G.L.: The Big Book of Concepts. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Margolis, E., Laurence, S. (eds.): Concepts: Core Readings. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Laurence, S., Margolis, E.: Review. Concepts: where cognitive science went wrong. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50(3), 487–491 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fodor, J.: Psychosemantics. The MIT Press/A Bradford Book, Cambridge, MA (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Fodor, J.: Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1998)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. Machery, E.: Doing without Concepts. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Rosch, E.: Principles of categorization. In: Rosch, E., Lloyd, B. (eds.) Cognition and Categorization, pp. 27–48. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  30. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Witten, I.H., Frank, E.: Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques with Java Implementations, 2nd edn., Kaufmann, San Francisco(2005)

    Google Scholar 

  32. 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)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Salerno, Italy

    Marcello Frixione & Antonio Lieto

Authors
  1. Marcello Frixione
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antonio Lieto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050, Brussel, Belgium

    Olga De Troyer

  2. Institute of Computing, University of Campinas, Av Albert Einstein 1251, 13083-852, Campinas, SP, Brazil

    Claudia Bauzer Medeiros

  3. Geomatics Unit, Université de Liège, 17 Allée du 6 Août, 4000, Liège, Belgium

    Roland Billen  & Pierre Hallot  & 

  4. HP Labs, Palo Alto, CA, USA

    Alkis Simitsis

  5. Business Development and Academic Relations Belgium-Luxembourg, Bourgetlaan, Avenue du Bourget 42, 1130, Brussel, Belgium

    Hans Van Mingroot

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation