Conceprocity relationships very broadly follow UML class diagram conventions (Booch, Rumbaugh and Jacobson, 2005) rather than G-MOT ones. This is because the UML conventions are more visually expressive than the letters used in G-MOT and therefore Conceprocity models can be made more semantically precise.
The relationship syntax is:
Symbol
|
Meaning
|
|
Flow of control or of data
|
|
Influences, governs, directs…
|
|
Is instantiated as. *** Is this arrow the wrong way round? ***
|
|
Commentary concerning the diagram. This relationship is also used for links between icons, images and sketches and the concept to which they relate
|
Figure Conceprocity relationship syntax
Conceprocity relationships are also referred to as notions. Thus notions in Conceprocity is a word which embraces (inter alia) concepts, procedures, actors, principles, events and relationships.
§4An introduction to conceptual modelling as knowledge representation within knowledge organisation systems
History: (Hartshorne, Weiss and Burks, 1931): existential graphs; (Sowa, 1984). Later work: (Sowa, 2000b, 1992)
Background: (Bunge, 2003, 1973; Harŕe, 1975; Kilov, 2004); (Wand and Weber, 1993; Wand, Storey and Weber, 1999); (Sowa, 2000b; a)
Note:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_model
See also: (Chein and Mugnier, 2008; Sowa, 2000b, 1992, 1984), further discussed at section §5 below. See also http://conceptualstructures.org/ and http://conceptualgraphs.org/CSP/index.php.
Note for now our pragmatic preference for semi-formal modelling which gives primacy to visual aspects. Thus although very respectful of more formal approaches, we have set them aside in our current work. There is a very long tradition, particularly in systems analysis, of using primarily graphical models; this is a reflection of the pragmatic reality that many ICT and Information Systems professionals – including the current author – lack skills in linear algebra and formal methods. Note also the entire emphasis of the Information Systems community, which considers that the use of systems – their usefulness and usability – is determined far more by pragmatic considerations, social factors and the like: than it is by the correctness of construction of a technologically-based artefact. This latter is the domain of computer science and of software engineering.
4.1Taxonomy, ontology, and knowledge representation
Thinking about this just a little bit more, I have made a mental connection between the issues of distinguishing concepts and a concern which I have had for some while about the Conceprocity language. Going back to 25/08/2013 Sunday, we identified the relationships supported in George Miller’s WordNet lexical database. Some of the fundamental relationships modelled in WordNet are already present in the Conceprocity language.
Going back to the table sourced from (Miller, 1995), we note:
Tableau Semantic relations from (Miller, 1995)
Semantic relation
|
Syntactic category
|
Examples
|
Commentary
|
Synonymy (similar)
|
N, V, Aj, Av
|
Pipe, tube
|
Synonymy is WordNet’s basic relation, because WordNet uses sets of synonyms (synsets) to represent word senses. Synonymy (syn same, onyma name) is a symmetric relation between word forms.
|
|
Rise, ascend
|
|
Sad, unhappy
|
|
Rapidly, speedily
|
Antonymy (opposite)
|
Aj, Av, (N, V)
|
Wet, dry
|
Antonymy (opposing-name) is also a symmetric semantic relation between word forms, especially important in organizing the meanings of adjectives and adverbs.
|
|
Powerful, powerless
|
|
Friendly, unfriendly
|
|
Rapidly, slowly
|
Hyponymy (subordinate)
|
N
|
Sugar maple, maple
|
Hyponymy (sub-name) and its inverse, hypernymy (super-name), are transitive relations between synsets. Because there is usually only one hypernym, this semantic relation organizes the meanings of nouns into a hierarchical structure.
|
|
Maple, tree
|
|
Tree, plant
|
Meronymy (part)
|
N
|
Brim, hat
|
Meronymy (part-name) and its inverse, holonymy (whole-name), are complex semantic relations. WordNet distinguishes component parts, substantive parts, and member parts.
|
|
Gin, Martini
|
|
Ship, Fleet
|
Troponymy (manner)
|
V
|
March, walk
|
Troponymy (manner-name) is for verbs what hyponymy is for nouns, although the resulting hierarchies are much shallower.
|
|
Whisper, speak
|
Entailment
|
V
|
Drive, ride
|
Entailment relations between verbs are also coded in WordNet.
|
|
Divorce, marry
|
Note: N = nouns, Aj = adjectives, V = verbs, Av = adverbs
|
|
We plan to extend this table, so that the basic relationship types identified by Miller are mapped to their Conceprocity equivalents and vice versa.
A nice little presentation that clarifies the distinction between taxonomy and ontology:
D:\Q\PhD\Taxonomy and Ontology powerpoint97-03.ppt
Share with your friends: |