Brachman, R.J. (1977) What's in a Concept: Structural Foundations for Semantic Networks, Int. Journal of Man-Machine Studies , 9, 127-152.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....an organization of terms in a network using two placed relations. This idea goes back to the use of semantic networks in the seventies. Many extensions of the basic idea have been proposed. One of the most influential was the use of roles that could be filled out by entities showing a certain type [Brachman, 1977]. This kind of value restriction can still be found in recent approaches. RDF schema descriptions [Brickley et al. 1998] which may become a new standard for the description of web pages, is an example. However, default values and value range descriptions are not expressive enough to cover all ....

.... on concepts being completely defined by the set of entities it is belonging to it is not adequate (e.g. Smith Mark, 1999] Therefore, Stuckenschmidt and Visser adopt an intentional view on concepts in the spirit of the knowledge representation frameworks of the KL family as it is described in [Brachman, 1977]. Following this work semantical information has to be added to a concept in terms of conditions that have to be fulfilled by an entity that is intended to belong to a certain concept. In general, these conditions may be expressed by arbitrary logical axioms over the predicates defining concepts. ....

Brachman, R. J. (1977). What's in a Concept: Structural Foundations for Semantic Nets. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 9 , 127--152.

.... view on concepts being completely defined by the set of enti ties belonging to it is not adequate (see for example [Smith and Mark, 1999] We therefore adopt an intentional view on concepts in the spirit of the knowledge rep resentation frameworks of the I(L family as it is described in [Brachman, 1977]. Following this work we have to add semantical information to a concept in terms of conditions that have to be fulfilled by an entity that is intended to belong to a certain concept. In general, these conditions could be expressed by arbitrary logical axioms over the predicates defining concepts. ....

Brachman, R. (1977). What's in a concept: Structural foundations for semantic nets. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 9:127-152.

....consists of an organization of terms in a network using two placed relations. This idea goes back to the use of semantic networks. Many extensions of the basic idea have been proposed. One of the most influential was the use of roles that could be filled out by entities showing a certain type [Brachman, 1977]. This kind of value restriction can still be found in recent approaches. RDF schema descriptions [Champin, 2000] which might become a new standard for the semantic descriptions of web pages is an example. An RDF schema contains class definitions with associated properties that can be restricted ....

Brachman, R. (1977). What's in a concept: Structural foundations for semantic nets. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 9(2):127--152.

.... classical view on concepts being completely defined by the set of entities belonging to it is not adequate (see for example [Smith and Mark, 1999] We therefore adopt an intentional view on concepts in the spirit of the knowledge representation frameworks of the KL family as it is described in [Brachman, 1977]. Following this work wehavetoaddsemantical information to a concept in terms of conditions that have to be fulfilled byanentity that is intended to belong to a certain concept. In general, these conditions could be expressed by arbitrary logical axioms over the predicates defining concepts. ....

Brachman, R. (1977). What's in a concept: Structural foundations for semantic nets. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 9:127--152.

....in a network using two placed relations. The idea of this goes back to the use of semantic networks in the seventies. Many extensions of the basic idea examined have been proposed. One of the most influential ones was, the use of roles that could be filled out by entities showing a certain type (Brachman, 1977). This kind of value restriction can still be found in recent approaches. RDF schema descriptions (Brickley and Guha, 2000) which might become a new standard for the semantic descriptions of web pages, are an example of this. An RDF schema contains class definitions with associated properties ....

Brachman, R. (1977). What's in a concept: Structural foundations for semantic nets. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 9:127-- 152.

.... representation has its origins in early representation schema in the mid 1960s in terms of semantic networks (Quillian, 1968) which were attractive in terms of their visual representation of knowledge structures but had problems of imprecise semantics which were analyzed by Woods (1975) and Brachman (1977) in the mid 1970s. In the 1980s the formal foundations of such systems were developed in terms of intensional logics (Maida and Shapiro, 1982) and complexity theory (Brachman and Levesque, 1984) and during the 1980s increasingly principled system designs were developed such as KL ONE (Brachman ....

Brachman, R.J. (1977). What's in a concept: structural foundations for semantic nets. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 9 127-152.

....that is embedded in a taxonomic hierarchy. Within the AI community, the central dimension of concepts is the representational dimension expressed by the simple equation Concept = Entities (Nodes) Relations (Links) and has lead to the development of conceptual graphs (semantic networks) Bra 77] Bra 78] and [Sow 84] For example, Fodor [Fod 81] gives the following linguistic description of concepts: A concept is that sort of mental representation which expresses a property and is expressed by an open sentences in a natural sentence . Fod 81, p.81] Epistemologically, concepts have an ....

Brachman, R. J What's in a Concept: Structural Foundations for Semantic Networks Int. Journal Man- Machine Studies 9 , 1977, pp. 127 - 152

....an organization of terms in a network using two placed relations. This idea goes back to the use of semantic networks in the seventies. Many extensions of the basic idea have been proposed. One of the most influential was the use of roles that could be filled out by entities showing a certain type (Brachman, 1977). This kind of value restriction can still be found in recent approaches. RDF schema descriptions (Brickley, Guha, Layman, 1998) which may become a new standard for the description of web pages, is an example. However, default values and value range descriptions are not expressive enough to ....

Brachman, R. J. (1977). What's in a Concept: Structural Foundations for Semantic Nets. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 9, 127--152.

....interpretation of BOOTSTRAPPING KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATIONS 16 the entailment that keeps the concepts together. This very abstract relation tells us that concepts somehow depend on each other, but it does not tell us how. Another knowledge representation scheme from AI, the semantic network (Brachman, 1977; Shastri, 1988; Sowa, 1991) is based on similar nets of interdependent concepts, but here the dependencies are classified into distinct types with specific interpretations. For example, different types of relations might specify that a concept a causes another concept b, that a is a part of ....

BRACHMAN, R. J. (1977). "What's in a Concept: Structural Foundations for Semantic Nets", Int. J. Man-Machine Studies 9, 127-152.

....[6, 7] is based on semantic models, influenced by the works of Navathe for the Candide model. It possesses a fairly rich semantic and the properties of terminological logics, commonly known as description logics [4] models taken from works on artificial intelligence in knowledge bases area [3] as KLONE [5] 1 family) In description logics, all is defined in terms of concepts and roles: ffl Concepts are assimilated to unary logical predicates (unary relations) a set of objects which have some common properties (like a class in object oriented models or a relation in the relational ....

R. J. Brachman. What's in concept: Structural foundations for semantic networks. International Journal Man--Machine Studies, pages 127--152, 1977.

....suggests to use a different notation for the two types of knowledge. The choice made with KL ONE is in this direction; however, as long as KL ONE roles are arbitrary binary relations, there is no a priori criteria to distinguish among the two different kinds of knowledge. For instance, Brachman ([3], p. 137) tackles Woods example by conceptualizing the hit relation and therefore representing mary as the filler of an object role for hit, but nothing in his formalism prevents the user from adopting another formalization, by representing mary as the filler of the hit role . What we want to ....

....languages. Separate attribute hierarchies are no more necessary, and range declarations like (all age Age) become superfluous. Moreover, we capture Brachman s original intuition (abandoned in subsequent formalizations) on the abstract commonality among KL ONE roles with the same name ([3], p. 141, our italics) while these roles [i.e. those with the same name] on the surface appear disparate, there is a strong common sense between them. While I do not as yet have a proposal on how this might be done, it does appear to be a fruitful research area. The abstraction ....

R. J. Brachman, What's in a concept: structural foundations for semantic networks, Int. J. Man-Machine Studies (1977) 127-152 .

....KEE could also encode this information as a default so that for every instance of the Red Ball class, inheritance asserts that the value of the color slot is red. Brachman made a similar point when he contrasted what he called assertional FRSs (e.g. KEE) from those that manipulate descriptions [9]. However, Brachman did not identify all four interpretations of universally quantified information, nor did he note that all four uses of such information can be required in certain situations. That the KL ONE family cannot deduce that if we know a ball is a red ball, then its color is red, seems ....

R.J. Brachman. What's in a concept: structural foundations for semantic networks. Int. J. Man--Machine Studies, 9:127--152, 1977.

....many systems, inheritance is only by default, that is, grass frogs do not inherit the property green, since this would be in contradiction with the explicit property edge saying that grass frogs are brown. The missing formal semantics of Semantic Networks was criticized by Woods [110] and Brachman [17]. The meaning of a given Semantic Network was left to the intuition of the users and the programmers who implemented the programs processing the networks. Consequently, identical networks could lead to very different results, depending on which of the systems was used to process it. As an ....

.... logic was presented in [105] Description Logics (DL) make the quantifier that is implicitly present in property edges (universal in the reading as value restrictions, and existential for the other option) explicit (see below) They descend from so called structured inheritance networks [17, 18], which were first realized in the system kl one [20] Their main idea is to start with atomic concepts (unary predicates) and roles (binary predicates) and use a (rather small) set of epistemologically adequate constructors to build complex concepts and roles. This idea has been further ....

R. J. Brachman. What's in a concept: Structural foundations for semantic networks. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 9:127--152, 1977.

....networks, and it had a network notation of labeled nodes and links. Despite its appearance, in some key respects klone was quite different from both the semantic network systems that preceded it, and the frame systems that grew up as its contemporaries. Following papers by Woods [33] and Brachman [6], kl one rejected the prevailing idea of an open ended variety of (domainspecific) link and node names, and instead embraced a small, fixed set of (non domain specific) epistemological primitives [8] for constructing complex structured objects. These constructs which represented basic general ....

....of years of use and reimplementation, it gradually became clear that kl one s approach to structured objects was substantially different than that of virtually all of its contemporary systems. The primary realization was that those objects had previously been used for (at least) two purposes [6, 9]: 1) to represent statements, usually of some typical properties (e.g. elephants are gray ) and (2) to act as structured descriptions, somewhat like complex mathematical types (e.g. a black telephone, rather than all telephones are black ) In the kl one community, the ....

Brachman, R. J., "What's in a Concept: Structural Foundations for Semantic Networks," Intl. Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 9(2), 1977, pp. 127--152.

No context found.

Brachman, R.J. (1977) What's in a Concept: Structural Foundations for Semantic Networks, Int. Journal of Man-Machine Studies , 9, 127-152.

No context found.

Ronald Brachman. What's in a concept: Structural foundations for semantic networks. International Journal Of Man Machine Studies, 9(2):127--152, 1977. 2.2

No context found.

Brachman, R.J., What's in a concept: Structural foundations for semantic networks, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 9 (127), 152, 1977.

No context found.

Ronald J. Brachman. What's in a concept: Structural foundations for semantic networks. Int. Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 9(2):127-152, 1977.

No context found.

Brachman, R. J. (1977). "What's in a Concept: Structural Foundations for Semantic Networks." International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 9: 127-152.

No context found.

R. Brachman. What's in a concept: structural foundations for semantic networks. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 9:127-152, 1977.

No context found.

R.J. Brachman. What's in a concept: Structural foundations for semantic nets. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 9:127-152, 1977.

No context found.

Brachman, R. J. (1977). What's in a concept: structural foundations for semantic networks. Int. J. Man-Machine Studies 9: 127-152.

No context found.

R. J. Brachman. What's in a concept: structural foundations for semantic networks. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 9:127--152, 1977.

No context found.

Brachman, R.J. [1977]. What's in a concept: Structural Foundations for Semantic Networks.

No context found.

Brachman, R. J. (1977). What's in a concept: structural foundations for semantic networks. Int. J. Man-Machine Studies 9: 127-152.

First 50 documents

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC