OntologyOntology, semantic map, , semantic map, cognitive ...lalic.paris-sorbonne.fr/PUBLICATIONS/2007/presentation_2007_DES... · 03/02/2009 1 OntologyOntology, semantic map, , semantic

03/02/2009

1

OntologyOntology, semantic map, , semantic map, cognitive schemecognitive scheme

Jean-Pierre DesclésUniversity of Paris-Sorbonne

LaLIC Laboratory« Languages, Logics, Informatics and Cognition »

FLAIRS’O7, Key West, May 2007

Ontology offirst level concepts

Classes of instances

Semantic mapsOntology of

second level concepts

Classes of linguistic markers

(indicators + clues)

Ontologyof third level concepts

Semantic-cognitive schemes

Cognitive and semanticfoundations

Upper ontology

03/02/2009

2

EXCOMEngine

for automatic semantic annotations

TEXTSLinguistic resources

Annotatedtexts










Upper ontology

USER

Summary of the PresentationSummary of the Presentation• Three levels of ontologies

- First level: Domain Ontology and LDO(Logic of Determination of Objects)

- Second level: The semantic maps is used for a construction of domain ontologies from automatically annotated texts

- Third level: Upper Ontology for the description of the meaning of concepts

• Aspectual values ( State, Event and Process ) : towards an Ontology of Time and Space

03/02/2009

3

1/ First level1/ First levelDomain OntologiesDomain Ontologies

First level Ontologies First level Ontologies

and Logic of Determination of Objects (LDO)and Logic of Determination of Objects (LDO)

Extension and intension of a concept ‘f’ in a Simple Taxonomic Ontology

ff

Ext (f)Ext (f)

gghh

{x}{x} {y}{y}

x1x1 x2x2 y1y1 y2y2 y3y3

Int(f)Int(f)uuvv

InstancesInstances

Intension

Expansion

Extension

03/02/2009

4

ττττ(f)

x1 = δδδδ(g1)(ττττ(f))

x2 = δδδδ(g2)(δδδδ(g1)(ττττ(f))

xn = δδδδ(gn) (…. (δδδδ(g2)(δδδδ(g1)(ττττ(f)) …)

δδδδ(g1)

δδδδ(g2)

δδδδ(gn)

.

.

.

f

ττττ Determination operators

δδδδ(g1), … δδδδ(gn)Abstract typical object

Objects more or less determinated

A problem of InheritanceA problem of Inheritance

‘Good’ Deduction: ‘Bad’ Deduction:

(1) All men have two feet (4) A man has two feet(2) Aristotle is a man (5) John is a man

------------------------------ (6) John has only one foot(3) (3) (3) (3) ∴∴∴∴ Aristotle has two feet ----------------------------

(7) * John has two feet

If we accept as general knowledge:(8) the property “to have two feet”

“incompatible” with:(9) the property “to have only one foot”

then the following contradiction arizes :(9) John hasonly one footand John has two feet.

03/02/2009

5

John

to be a man

has two feet

∈∈∈∈

⊆⊆⊆⊆

∈∈∈∈has only one foot

Int(be-a- man)

contradiction

Int ( John)

ττττ(f)

f

δδδδ(g1) (ττττ(f))

Int (f)

Expansion(f)

z

δδδδ(g2) (ττττ(f)) u

Typical object

Ext (f)Extττττ (f)Typical fully specified instances

does not belongto Expansion(f)

03/02/2009

6

f

ττττ(f)

x u = δ δ δ δ(g)(x) δ δ δ δ(g)

ττττ

Ess(f)

h = N1(g)

Int (f)

Expansion(f)

Essence (f)

2/ How to build a Domain 2/ How to build a Domain Ontology ?Ontology ?

Second Level Ontologies and Semantic mapsSecond Level Ontologies and Semantic maps

03/02/2009

7

Building Domain Ontologies from texts

Texts

Semantic AnnotationsEngine (EXCOM)

Linguisticresources

Ontology

Reference Domain

in connection with

Annotatedtexts

ExtractionEngine

1

2

3 4

in connection with

Semantic relations between Semantic relations between concepts : examplesconcepts : examples

• This concept f is a part of the concept g;• A relation is a localization;• A relation of causality;• A concept f is defined by an integration of

more elementary concepts g1, …, gn;• A concept is related to a process, or to a

state• This concept designates an activity;• ….

03/02/2009

8

Notion of connexion between individuals

• Who has met whom ?• Where ?• When ?

« Qui est avec qui ? »

Who has met with who ?When ? Why ?

03/02/2009

9

Classof linguistic

markers of the notion 1

Classof linguistic

markers of the notion 2

Classof linguistic

markers of the notion 1.1.

Classof linguistic


Semantic Map ( intension)of a notion

Notion 1

Notion 1.1.

Notion 1.2.

Notion 2

CE rules for the notion 1.1.

CE rules for the notion 1.2.

CE rules for the notion 2

CE rules for the notion 1

IndicatorINDCI1 CI2 CI3 CI4

Research space

Annotationof a viewpoint

Contextual Exploration Rule : INDIND I1 et I2 at left & I3 and I4 at rightI1 et I2 at left & I3 and I4 at rightTHENTHEN annotate according to a viwpointannotate according to a viwpoint

clues

03/02/2009

10

IND =hypothesis

I1 =my

I2 =is expressedas follows :

Research space : a sentence

Annotation by a topicannouncement(mark of an hypothesis)

An example of annotation : Topic annuncementAn example of annotation : Topic annuncement

cluesclues

Semantic Map (intension)of topic announcement

goals

Hypotheses

Conclusiveremarks

Results

Classof linguistic

markers of goals

Classof linguistic

markers of results

Classof linguistic


Classof linguistic

markers of conclusive remarks

CE rules for « hypotheses »

CE rules for « conclusive

remarks »

CE rules for « results »

CE rules for « goals »

03/02/2009

11

EngineEnginefor texts Annotationfor texts Annotation

by Contextualby ContextualExplorationExploration

Texts

Viewpoint« meeting »

Viewpoint« quotations »

Viewpointsfortext Mining

Viewpoint« causality »

Viewpoint« definition »

Linguistic resoources according to a viwpoint for text mining

SegmentedTexts

1

23

4

LinguisticResources forsegmentation

Viewpoint« temporal

Information »….

AnnotatedTexts

Ontologyof « viewpoints » Semantic maps

(Level 2 )

Instancesclasses of markers

of relations

Domain Ontologies(Level 1 )

Object classes(instances)

Linguistic Theory

Discourse markerstheory

Texts

Terminologyextractor

AnnotatedTexts

To populateontologies

EXCOMEXCOM

03/02/2009

12

3/ Third Level Ontologies :3/ Third Level Ontologies :Upper and General OntologiesUpper and General Ontologies

Cognitive Semantics SchemesCognitive Semantics Schemes

Scheme = Scheme = a formal representationa formal representation

of a meaningof a meaning(relations, verbal predicates, (relations, verbal predicates, topological prepositions …)topological prepositions …)

03/02/2009

13

Cognitive and Applicative Grammar Cognitive and Applicative Grammar (CAG) (Desclés, 1990, …)(CAG) (Desclés, 1990, …)

Morpho-syntaxic Configurationsin Natural Language

Logico-grammatical RepresentationsBy means of applicative expressions

Semantico-cognitive representationsGenerated by Schemes

Lexical SynthesisLexical Analysis

Categorial Analysis Categorial Synthesis ExtendedCategorialGrammars

SemanticInterpretation

Scheme of TO ENTER inScheme of TO ENTER in«« The flight A05 enters the area ZU3The flight A05 enters the area ZU3 »»

< y REP (ext (Loc(z))) > < y REP (int (Loc(z))) >

MOVTSIT 1[x,y] SIT 2[x,y]

enters’ ( z, y)

[ enters’ = def X MOVT REP ext int Loc ]

y := the flight A05z := the area ZU3

Integrating cognitiveunits intoa lexical predicate

03/02/2009

14

Flight A O5

Area ZU3

Int (Loc (ZU3))

Ext(Loc(ZU3))

The Meaning of TO ENTERThe Meaning of TO ENTER

• [ enters' = def X MOVT REP EXT INT ]

• The meaning of the lexical predicate is given as a functional (applicative) combination of the primitives :

MOVT, REP, ext and int

with an applicative program expressed by the Combinator ‘ X’ of Combinatory Logic

03/02/2009

15

< x REP (ext (Loc(z))) > < x REP (int (Loc(z))) >


x

Scheme of TO ENTER inScheme of TO ENTER in«« The Agent X007 enters the area ZU3The Agent X007 enters the area ZU3 »»

enters’ ( z, x)

[ enters 2’ =def Z CONTR MOVT REP ext int Loc ]

= =

x := The agent X007 (an Agent)z := the area ZU3 (a Localizer)


CONTR

< y REP (ext (Loc(z))) > < y REP (int (Loc(z))) >


x

Scheme of TO GET in Scheme of TO GET in «« The agent X007 gets the flight Y05 into the area ZU3The agent X007 gets the flight Y05 into the area ZU 3 »»

Enters 2’ ( z, y, x)

[ enters 3’ = def U CONTR MOVT REP ext int Loc ]

x:= an Agenty := a Patientz := a Localizer


CONTR

03/02/2009

16

B in int (Loc(A)) B is int (Loc))

D := moneyD := money

Field of A Field of B

CHANG

CHANG

Agents : A, C

CONTR

«« A sells B to CA sells B to C »»figurative scheme

< B REP (ext (Loc(C))) >

< B REP (int (Loc(A))) >< C OWNS D>

NON <A OWNS D>

< B REP (int (Loc(C))) >

< B REP (ext (Loc(A))) >< A OWNS D>

NON <C OWNS D>

CHANG

SIT 1 [A,B,C] SIT 2 [A,B,C]

CONTR

A, C

Scheme of TO SELL in Scheme of TO SELL in «« A sells B to CA sells B to C »»

[ sells’ = def U CONTR CHANG OWNS REP ext int Loc ( ∃∃∃∃ D) ]

A := AgentB := PatientC := Receiver

∃∃∃∃ D := qnt (money)

03/02/2009

17

λλλλz.λλλλy. λλλλx. λλλλO1. λλλλO2. λλλλF

[ <x CONT ( ∃∃∃∃ D := qnt (money) such that ( <y REP ext (Loc(z))> AND < y REP int (Loc(x)> AND < z OWNS D>) O1

MOVT F

( <y REP int (Loc(z))>)) > AND< y REP ext (Loc(x)> AND < x OWNS D>) O2 ) ]

with temporal conditions :

- O1 and O2 are open intervals of instants- F is a close interval of instants (a transition) - O1 <F <O2 and d(O1) = g( F); d(F) = g(O2)

FO1 O2

d(O1) = g(F) d(F) = g(O2)

λλλλ-expression associated to the Scheme TO SELL

time

Boundaries

The book The book is onis on the tablethe table

(is (on (the-table))) (the-book)

< (the-book) Rep ON (the-table) >

< (the-book) Rep (Boundary(Loc (the-table))) >

[ ON = Boundary 0 Loc ]

[ IS ON = Rep0 ON ]

03/02/2009

18

•• Field of PERCEPTION :Field of PERCEPTION :STATIC :

topologic locationstatic relations (∈∈∈∈, ⊆⊆⊆⊆, ε, localization …)

CINEMATIC : motion, change

•• Field of ACTION :Field of ACTION :DYNAMIC :

control, doing, teleonomy

StaticStatic , , Cinematic, DynamicCinematic, DynamicPrimitivesPrimitives

( Dynamical situation : Dynamical situation : CONTROL

( Cinematic situationCinematic situation : MOVement

(static SITUATION : SITUATION : Locating 1) (static SITUATION : SITUATION : Locating 2 ) ) )

DYNAMICAL SYMBOLIC SCHEMEDYNAMICAL SYMBOLIC SCHEMEby embedding ofby embedding of

static situations inside a cinematic situationstatic situations inside a cinematic situation

03/02/2009

19

MOVT

CONTROLS

Cinematic SITuationCinematic SITuation

Static SITuation 1Static SITuation 1 Static SITuation 2Static SITuation 2

Dynamic SITuationDynamic SITuation

X

< Y Rep Z1 >< Y Rep Z1 > < Y Rep Z2 >< Y Rep Z2 >

Semantico-cognitive dynamic scheme

CAUSALITY

DYNAMICS

CINEMATICS

STATICS

Schemes Embedding

03/02/2009

20

Cognitive and Applicative Grammar Cognitive and Applicative Grammar (CAG) (Desclés, 1990)(CAG) (Desclés, 1990)

Morpho-syntaxical Configurationsof a Natural Language

Logico-grammatical RepresentationsBy means of applicative expressions

Semantico-cognitive representationsGenerated by Schemes

Lexical SynthesisLexical Analysis

Categorial Analysis Categorial Synthesis ExtendedCategorialGrammars

SemanticInterpretation

4/ Notions and Properties of 4/ Notions and Properties of Aspects Aspects

03/02/2009

21

STATE (R)

EVENT (R)

PROCESS (R)

Aspectual Values of a Predicative Relation R

time

changes

time

changes

time

changes

STATE EVENT

PROCESS

Open interval Closed interval

Left closed interval

03/02/2009

22

]I[

∀∀∀∀ t : ( t∈∈∈∈ I ) => Eval (State®,t) = « True»

State (R) is True ∃∃∃∃]I[ such that

[J[t = d(J)

∀∀∀∀ t’’ : ( t’’ ∈∈∈∈ J ) (t’’ < t = d(J)) => Eval (Process(R),t’’) = « True »

Process (R) is True ∃∃∃∃[J[ such that

[F] t=d(F)

(t= d(F)) => Eval (Event (R),t) = « True »Event (R) is True ∃∃∃∃[F] such that

t’’ < t

t

T0

T0

T0

T0

T1

PROCESS

RESULTING-STATE

STATE (« he is happy »)

PROCESS

EVENT

The hunter is shootingthe deer

The hunter has schot the deer

The hunter was shootingthe deer (when) …

The hunter shot the deer

(a’)

(b’)

(c’)

(d’)

This morning

Yesterday

03/02/2009

23

O’O

F’F d(F)

J’J d(J)

d(J’)

J O^J

F

.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

d(F) = g(O)

STATE EVENT

PROCESS

when accomplished, itgenerates

a transitionbetween states

two states are the bounds of an event

when accomplished, itgeneratesa resulting state

initial state beforea process

03/02/2009

24

State Process Event

Semantic Map of Aspects

DescriptiveState Completed

Event

Non completed

Event

State of Activity

Non interruptedProcess

ProgressiveProcess

ResultingState Sequence of

discrete occurrences (Events, Processes,

States)

New state

End State

STATESTATE

DescriptiveState State of activity

ResultingState

PermanentState

ContingentState

NewState

Underlying process

Implies

Event

Determined bycontiguous

ConsequentState

03/02/2009

25

Process

No interrupted

ProgressiveProcess

Interrupted

Event

generates

ContinuousProcess

Discrete Process

Open classof

Events

Closed classof

Events

State of Activity

generates

TimeTime

Temporal Reference System : In(T)

Interval : In(T)

Instant : T

Temporal Situation : Sit

State : Sit Event : Sit Process : Sit

Open closed

Closed to the leftOpen to the right

03/02/2009

26

5/ Towards an Ontology 5/ Towards an Ontology of Timeof Time

Notion : Time

located inside a refetence framework : Ref

is-in-interval : Int

is-an-instant : T with an-open boundary : Int

with-a-closed-boundary : Int

closed : Int

topological: Int

with boundaries : Intwithout a boundary: Int

is-a-boundary : TClosed to the leftOpen to the right

Open to the leftClosed to the right

δδδδ

:=:=:=:=

εεεεεεεε

εεεεεεεε

:=:=:=:= εεεε

εεεε

εεεε

δδδδ

δδδδ

δδδδδδδδ

ε

εεεε

Types : instant : T

Interval : Int

begin : T end : T

open: Int

εεεε εεεε

εεεε

:=:=:=:=

<<<<

03/02/2009

27

Properties of the relators: ∈, ε , ⊆ , δ

• X ∈ Y � ∀u,∀v : [X(u) => (Y(v) => u ∈ v)]∈ : F(F(FYH)H)(FXH)H

• X ε Y � ∀u : [X(u) => (Y(u) ]ε : F(FXH)F(FXH) H

• X ⊆ Y �∀u,∀v : [X(u) => (Y(v) => u ⊆ v)]∈ : F(FYH)F(FXH)H

• X δδδδ Y � ∀u : [ Y(u) => ∃v : [ X(v) ; u = δδδδ(Y)(v) ]δδδδ : F(FXH)F(FYH)H

Predication / determination

(∀∀∀∀t) : [is-begin (t) => is a boundary (t)

=> is-an-instant (t) =>is-in-an-interval (t) ]

(∀∀∀∀t) : [ is-begin (t) => is a boundary (t)

=> is-an-instant (t) =>is-in-an-

(δδδδ (closed)(δδδδ (boundary)

(δδδδ (topological)(interval)))) ]

03/02/2009

28

6/ Temporal Reference Systems6/ Temporal Reference Systems

T0.

.Enunciative external event

Enunciative process

tg tm td

ExternalReference System

EnunciativeReference system

J0

03/02/2009

29

T0

.

Retrospective organization from the memory

Organization fromthe chronology of realized events

EnunciativeProcess

Realized No realized

PAST FUTURE

T’ ≠≠≠≠ T ≠≠≠≠ T0≠≠≠≠

T’

#

EnunciativeReference System

AnotherReference System

# #

Rupture relation « # » between two Reference SystemsNo-concomitance «≠≠≠≠ » between two instants

03/02/2009

30

T0

#

EVENT 2EVENT 1 <

#

EVENT<

#

tm

EXRS

ENRS

NARS EVENT 3<

##

##

NARS = « Non-Actual Reference System» ; ENRS = « Enunciative Reference System » ; EXRS = « External Reference System»

TIME

T0

EVENT i-2

EVEN i-1

EVENT i

=#

t0

EVEN i-2

EVENT i-1

Realized Events

NARS

NERS

Reported Events

03/02/2009

31

Ev1

Ev2

Ev’1

ProcessgeneratingEv 1

Final event ofEv 1

When two events Av 1 and Ev 2 overlap, the linguist ic expression of the overlap entails a decomposition of the first ev ent into an initial process and a final event.

Overlap of Two Events

Etat 1

Etat 2

Etat 3

Proc 2

Proc 3Proc 1

Overlap of Two States

Overlap of Two Process

03/02/2009

32

Adjacent Boundary

The translation is impossible

The translation is impossible

The translation is possible

7/ Theory of Abstract Places7/ Theory of Abstract Placeswithwith

Inner) Interior and Inner) Interior and (outer) Exterior(outer) Exterior

BoundariesBoundaries

03/02/2009

33

Interior (LOC)

Exterior (LOC)Ext- Boundary(LOC)

Int -Boundary(LOC)

Interior (LOC)

Exterior (LOC)Ext-Boundary(LOC)

Int-Boundary (LOC)

Interior(LOC)

Boundary Boundary

Int-Bnd

Ext-FroExt-Bnd

Int-Bnd

Exterior Ext(Loc)

I II III IV V VI VII

03/02/2009

34

Activity State

To get ready to do

To stop

To begin

To finish

To start

is …ing

To have …ed

To continue

Stage 1Stage 2

Different phases (stages) of an EVENTDifferent phases (stages) of an EVENT

Event

State Activity:The plane is in flight

PROCESS :The plane is flying

RESULTINGSTATE:The plane has flown

Stage 1BEFORE Stage 2

AFTER

An Activity State => an underlying ProcessAn Activity State => an underlying Process

Complete event

03/02/2009

35

EXCOMEngine

for automatic semantic annotations

TEXTSLinguistic resources

Annotatedtexts










Upper ontology

USER

Thank you Thank you for your attention !for your attention !

03/02/2009

36

• => DESCLES, Jean-Pierre, (1990), « State, Event and Process and Topology », General Linguistics , 29, 3, University Park and Lon,don : Pennsylvania State University Press, pp. 159-200.

• => DESCLES, Jean-Pierre, (1990), Langages applicatifs, langues naturelles et cognition , Hermès, Paris.

• => DESCLES, Jean-Pierre, and GUENTCHEVA Zlatka, (19 95), « Is The Notion of Process Necessary ? » in BERTINETTO, P. Marco & alii, (1995), Temporal Reference Aspect and Actionalitry , Rosenberg and Sellier, Turin. pp. 55-70.

• => DESCLES, Jean-Pierre, (2002), « Categorization : A Logical Approach to a Cognitive Problem », Journal of Cognitive Science , Vol.3, n0 2, 2002, pp. 85-137.

• => DESCLES, Jean-Pierre, (2004), “Combinatory Logic , Language, and Cognitive Representations », in WEINGARTNER, Paul, ( editor) (2004), Alternative Logics. Do Sciences Need Them ?, Springer, pp. 115-148.

• => DESCLES, Jean-Pierre, (2005), “Reasoning and Asp ectual-temporal calculus”, in VANDERVEKEN, Daniel, (editor) Logic, Thought and Logic , Springer, 2005, pp. 217-244.

References

• DESCLES, Jean-Pierre, (1994), “ Quelques concepts re latifs au temps et à l’aspect pour l’analyse des textes”, Etudes Cognitives, Sémantique des catégories d’aspe ct et de temps, Studia Kognitywne , t1, Palska Akademia Nauk, Instytut Slawistyki, Warszawa, 1994, pp. 57- 88.

• => DESCLES, Jean-Pierre, (1996), « Cognitive and App licative Grammar: an overview », in. Carlos Martin Vide (1996) Lenguajes naturales y Lenguajes Formales , XII, Universitat Rovira I Virgili, Barcelona, pp. 2 9-60

• DESCLES, Jean-Pierre, (1997), “Logique combinatoire, types, preuves et langage naturel”, in Miéville Denis (éditeur), Travaux de logique, Introduction aux logiques non classiques , CDRS, Université de Neuchâtel, 1997, pp. 91-160.

• => DESCLES Jean-Pierre, GUENTCHEVA Zlatka, “Causalit y, Causativity, Transitivity”, ed. L. Kulikov, H. Vater, Typology of verbal Categories , Niemeyer , 1998 pp 7-27.

• DESCLES Jean-Pierre, “Transitivité syntaxique, trans itivité sémantique”, ed. André Rousseau, La transitivité, Septentrion, Presses universitaires, Lille, France 1998 pp 162-180.

• DESCLES Jean-Pierre, “Logique combinatoire, topologi e et analyse aspecto-temporelle”, Études cognitives, 2, Académie des sciences de Pologne, Varsovie, Pologne, juin 1997, pp 37-69.

03/02/2009

37

• DESCLES Jean-Pierre, “Les représentations cognitive s du langage sont-elles universelles ?” Essais sur le langage, logique et sens commun, Editions Universitaires, Fribourg, Suisse, 1998 pp. 53-81.

• DESCLES, Jean-Pierre, (2000), “Abduction and Non-ob servability –Some examples from Language Science and Cognitive Science”, in AGAZZI Evandro and PAURI Massimo (editors), The Reality of the Unobservable , Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 87 -112.

• DESCLES Jean-Pierre, GUENTCHEVA Zlatka, “Enonciateu r, locuteur, médiateur”, editeurs : Aurore Becquelin et Philipp e Erickson, Les rituels du dialogue , Editions de l’Harmattan, 2OOO.

• DESCLES, Jean-Pierre, GUENTCHEVA Zlatka, (2000), « Q uantification Without Bound Variables », in Böttner Michael and T hümmel Wolf, (editors), Variable-free Semantics , Secolo Verlag, Rolandsmauer, (2000), pp. 210-233.

• => DESCLES, Jean-Pierre, (2004), “Analyse syntaxiqu e et cognitive des relations entre la préposition SUR et le préverbe SUR- en français ”, Studia Kognitywne , 6, SOW, Warszawa, pp. 21-48.

• DESCLES, Jean-Pierre, Jean-Luc MINEL, (2005) « Inter préter par exploration contextuelle » in CORBLIN Francis et GARDENT Claire (éditeurs), Interpréter en contexte , Hermès Lavoisier, Paris, (2005), pp . 305-328.

• => DESCLES, Jean-Pierre, and GUENTCHEVA Zlatka, (20 07), “Référentiels aspecto-temporels dans les textes”, Studia Kognitywne 7, Slawistyczny Osrodek Wydawniczy, Warszawa, 2007, pp. 11- 38.

03/02/2009

38

• DESCLES, Jean-Pierre, and GUENTCHEVA Zlatka, (2007), Aspects et temporalité dans les langues, approche théorique et descriptive , à paraître.

• => DESCLES, Jean-Pierre, Djioua Braim (2007), La recherche d’informations par accès aux contenus sémantiques : vers une nouvelle classe de Systèmes de Recherches d’informations, aspects linguistiques, stratégiques et économiques , rapport interne, LaLIC, Université de Paris-Sorbonne, 29 pages.

• ALLEN James and Patrick Hayes « Moments and points i n an interval based temporal Logic », Computational Intel ligence 5(4), 1990 : 225-238

• Aussenac-Gilles N. and Dagobert Sörgel « Supervised Text analysis for ontology and terminology engeneering, Applied Ontology, Vol 1, Number 1, 2005, pp. 35-46

• Nicola GUARINO and Christopher Welty, An ocerview o f OntoClean, in Stefen Staab and Rudi Studer, Handboo k on Ontologies, International Handbook on Information S ystems, chapter 8, pp. 151-159, Springer, Berlin, 2004

• Jerry R. Hobbs and Feng Pan« An Ontology of Time for the Semantic Web », ACM Transactions on Asian Language Information Processing, Vol 3, N0 1, March 2004, 66 -85.

03/02/2009

39

• Heinrich Herre, General Formal Ontology (GFO), Onto -Med Report, N°8, july 2006.

• Puraro S. and Storey V.C. « A multi-layered ontology for comparing relationship semantics in conceptual mode ls of databases, Applied Ontology, Vol 1, Number 1, 2005, pp. 117-139

• SOWA John Knowledge Representation : Logical , Philosophical and Computational Foundations , Brooks / Cole, Pacific Grove, 2000.

• SUO IEEE P 1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology Working G roup (SUO WG), 2004

General Ontologies

• GFO (Heinrich Herre)• DOLCE (Nicola Guarino)• Sowa• SUO (IEEE wortking group)• BFO (Barry Smith)• Cyc• CAGO (Desclés & alii)

OntologyOntology, semantic map, , semantic map, cognitive ...lalic.paris-sorbonne.fr/PUBLICATIONS/2007/presentation_2007_DES... · 03/02/2009 1 OntologyOntology, semantic map, , semantic

Documents