1993
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-56979-0_4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparison between conceptual graphs and KL-ONE

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

1997
1997
2004
2004

Publication Types

Select...
3
3

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Their properties include the ability to represent sentences as partial graphs that define conceptual structures involving individual terms, and to combine partial graphs to express relationships between concepts. They also provide a standard way to represent knowledge which can be mapped onto other representations or formal systems, such as first-order logic [25] and semantic networks [26]. Another way to consider conceptual graphs consists of viewing them as a theory, including in a unique formalism both the means to build canonical conceptual graphs [27] and valid operations, which allow to build new conceptual graphs by refinement, join, and projection of existing conceptual graphs, without regarding links this theory may have to other knowledge representation systems [28].…”
Section: The Conceptual Graphs Theorymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Their properties include the ability to represent sentences as partial graphs that define conceptual structures involving individual terms, and to combine partial graphs to express relationships between concepts. They also provide a standard way to represent knowledge which can be mapped onto other representations or formal systems, such as first-order logic [25] and semantic networks [26]. Another way to consider conceptual graphs consists of viewing them as a theory, including in a unique formalism both the means to build canonical conceptual graphs [27] and valid operations, which allow to build new conceptual graphs by refinement, join, and projection of existing conceptual graphs, without regarding links this theory may have to other knowledge representation systems [28].…”
Section: The Conceptual Graphs Theorymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Subsumption is central in both formalisms: between graphs or between types in CGs (generalization), between concepts in DLs. Similarities between these formalisms have often been pointed out [1,11] but up to now, to our knowledge, no formal study has ever been carried out about correspondences between CGs and DLs. Beyond an interesting theoretical result, such a work would offer CGs and DLs communities a mutual advantage of about 15 years of research.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, CGs provide syntactic clarity together with powerful expressiveness about quantifier processing, which concerns the individualgeneric distinction supported by the flexibility of references. 13 The application of inference rules supports extracting knowledge which is not directly encoded in the domain ontology.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%