Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The correspondence between the concepts in description logics for contexts and formal concept analysis

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Science China Information Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Formal concept analysis (FCA) and description logic (DL) are meant to be formalizations of concepts. A formal concept in the former consists of its intent and extent, where the intent is the set of all the attributes shared by each object in the extent of the concept, and the extent is the set of all the objects sharing each property in the intent of the concept. A concept in the latter formalization is simply a concept name, the interpretation of which is a subset of a universe. To consider the correspondence between concepts in both formalizations, a multi-valued formal context must be represented both as a knowledge base and as a model of the DL for contexts, where concepts are decomposed into tuple concepts C, interpreted as a set of tuples and value concepts V, interpreted as a set of attribute-value pairs. We show that there is a difference between the interpretation of concepts ∀R.V/∀R −.C and the Galois connection between the extent/intent of formal concepts in FCA. According to the Galois connection, there should be concepts of the form +∀R.V and +∀R −.C interpreted in FCA, and hence the logical language L for DL is extended to be L + together with +∀ as a constructor so that +∀R.V and +∀R −.C are well-defined concepts. Conversely, according to the interpretation in DL there should be pseudo concepts in FCA so that the interpretation of concepts ∀R.V/∀R −.C is the extent/intent of pseudo concepts. The correspondence between formal concepts and concepts in L +, and between pseudo concepts and concepts in L are presented in this paper.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Calvanese D, De Giacomo G, Lenzerini M, et al. Source integration in data warehousing. In: Quirchmayr G, Schweighofer E, Bench-Capon T J M, eds. Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications. New York: Springer, 1998. 192–197

    Google Scholar 

  2. Calvanese D, Lenzerini M, Nardi D. Description logics for conceptual data modeling. In: Chomicki J, Saake G, eds. Logics for Databases and Information Systems. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher, 1998. 229–263

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Beneventano D, Bergamaschi S, Lodi S. Terminological logics for schema design and query processing in OODBs. In: Baader F, Buchheit M, Jeusfeld M A, eds. Proceedings of 1st Workshop KRDB’94. 1994

  4. Borgida A. Description logics for querying databases. In: Baader F, Lenzerini M, Nutt W, eds. Proceedings of the 1994 International Workshop on Description Logics. 1994

  5. Borgida A, Lenzerini M, Rosati R. Description logics for data bases. In: Baader F, Calvanese D, McGuinness D L, et al., eds. The Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. 472–494

    Google Scholar 

  6. Lenzerini M. Description logics and their relationships with databases. In: Beeri C, Buneman P, eds. Database Theory — ICDT’99, LNCS, 1540. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 1999. 32–38

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Borgida A. Description logics in data management. IEEE Trans Knowl Data En, 1995, 7: 671–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Canter B, Wille R. Formal Concept Analysis: Mathematical Foundations. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1999. 17–62

    Google Scholar 

  9. Saquer J, Deogun J S. Formal rough concept analysis. In: Zhong N, Skowron A, Ohsuga S, eds. New Directions in Rough Sets, Data Mining, and Granular-Soft Computing. Proceedings of 7th International Workshop, RSFDGrC’ 99. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 1999. 91–99

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Pagliani P. From concept lattices to approximation spaces: algebraic structures of some spaces of partial objects. Fund Inform, 1993, 18: 1–25

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Wille R. Restructuring lattice theory: an approach based on hierarchies of concepts. In: Rival I, ed. Ordered Sets. Dordecht-Boston: Reidel, 1982. 445–470

    Google Scholar 

  12. Baader F, Calvanese D, McGuinness D L, et al. The Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. 45–138

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lutz C. Reasoning with concrete domains. In: Thomas D, ed. Proceedings of the 16th IJCAI. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1999. 90–95

    Google Scholar 

  14. Wang J, Jiang Y C, Shen Y M. A satisfiability and reasoning mechanism of terminological cycles in description logic vL(in Chinese). Sci China Ser F-Inf Sci, 2009, 39: 205–211

    Google Scholar 

  15. Baader F, Ganter B, Sattler U, et al. Completing description logic knowledge bases using formal concept analysis. In: Manuela M V, ed. Proceedings of the 20th IJCAI. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2007. 230–235

    Google Scholar 

  16. Baader F, Sertkaya B. Applying formal concept analysis to description logics. In: Eklund P, ed. Berlin/Heidelberg: Proceedings of ICFCA 2004. LNAI, 2961. Springer, 2004. 261–286

  17. Burmeister P, Holzer R. Treating incomplete knowledge in formal concept analysis. In: Ganter B, Stumme G, Wille R, eds. Formal Concept Analysis. LNCS, 3626. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 2005. 114–126

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Huchard M, Napoli A, Rouane M H, et al. A proposal for combining formal concept analysis and description logics for mining relational data. In: Kuznetsov S O, Schmidt S, eds. Proceedings of ICFCA 2007. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 2007. 51–65

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rudolph S. Exploring relational structures via FLE. In: Bubak M, Albada G D, Dongarra J J, et al., eds. Proceedings of ICCS04. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2004. 196–212

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Key Laboratory of Intelligent Information Processing, Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100190, China

    Yue Ma, YueFei Sui & CunGen Cao

  2. Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100049, China

    Yue Ma

Authors
  1. Yue Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. YueFei Sui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. CunGen Cao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yue Ma.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ma, Y., Sui, Y. & Cao, C. The correspondence between the concepts in description logics for contexts and formal concept analysis. Sci. China Inf. Sci. 55, 1106–1122 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-011-4376-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-011-4376-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation