The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including th gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments re information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service: u-* * 1215 Jefferson Davis Highw/ay, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanu.ny any otner provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid 0MB control number.PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)2. REPORT TYPE
Final
TITLE AND SUBTITLEBuilding and Acquiring Interactionist Ontologies
AUTHOR(S)Paul R. Cohen . WORK UNIT NUMBER
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)Computer Science Department University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003
SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)Air
DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENTDistribution Statement A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
ABSTRACTOur HPKB effort was intended to determine whether physical schemas could be a semantic core for ontologies. This report describes the basic theory of physical schema and our work on re-use of knowledge from ontologies. An addendum to the report is a published summary of all the research in the entire HPKB program written by Prof Cohen (first author) and many of the HPKB principals.
Technical Final ReportOur HPKB effort was intended to determine whether physical schemas could be a semantic core for ontologies. This report describes the basic theory of physical schemas and our work on re-use of knowledge from ontologies. An addendum to the report is a published summary of all the research in the entire HPKB program written by Prof. Cohen (first author) and many of the HPKB principals.
Physical Schemas and the Semantic CoreMany situations can be understood in terms of relatively few, physical relationships called image schemas or physical schemas (Lakoff 1984, Lakoff and Johnson 1980). Let's consider some examples:In/Out The first preposition learned by children of all cultures is "in." This is because "in" corresponds to one of the most basic conceptual structures in our minds, the idea of inclusion, containment, being part of a group or activity, being in a state, and so on. If an intelligent agent understood the word "in" as we do, then it would understand that the following sentences share a core "in" meaning:The base is in the Changjong Sector. The attack is in progress. The red forces are contained. The wing is deep in enemy airspace. You're in the army, now. The troops are in a confident state of mind.Similarly, a core "out" meaning is common to the following sentences:The base is outside the theater of operations. The attack is not our problem.In one of these sentences "outside" has a spatial interpretation; the other sentence evo...