# Combining Description Logics, Description Graphs, and Rules

Ontology type: schema:Chapter

### Chapter Info

DATE

2010

AUTHORS ABSTRACT

The Web Ontology Language (OWL) is a well-known language for ontology modeling in the Semantic Web [9]. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is currently working on a revision of OWL—called OWL 2 [2]—whose main goal is to address some of the limitations of OWL. The formal underpinnings of OWL and OWL 2 are provided by description logics (DLs)[1]–knowledge representation formalisms with well-understood formal properties.DLs are often used to describe structured objects—objects whose parts are interconnected in complex ways. Such objects abound in molecular biology and the clinical sciences, and clinical ontologies such as GALEN, the Foundational Model of Anatomy (FMA), and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Thesaurus describe numerous structured objects. For example, FMA models the human hand as consisting of the fingers, the palm, various bones, blood vessels, and so on, all of which are highly interconnected.Modeling structured objects poses numerous problems to DLs and the OWL family of languages. The design of DLs has been driven by the desire to provide practically useful knowledge modeling primitives while ensuring decidability of the core reasoning problems. To achieve the latter goal, the modeling constructs available in DLs are usually carefully crafted so that the resulting language exhibits a variant of the tree-model property [10]: each satisfiable DL ontology always has at least one model whose elements are connected in a tree-like manner. This property can be used to derive a decision procedure; however, it also prevents one from accurately describing (usually non-tree-like) structured objects since, whenever a model exists, at least one model does not reflect the intended structure. This technical problem has severe consequences in practice [6]. In search of the “correct” way of describing structured objects, modelers often create overly complex descriptions; however, since the required expressive power is actually missing, such descriptions do not entail the consequences that would follow if the descriptions accurately captured the intended structure.In order to address this lack of expressivity, we extended DLs with description graphs, which can be understood as schema-level descriptions of structured objects. To allow for the representation of conditional statements about structured objects, we also incorporated first-order rules [3] into our extension. In this way we obtain a powerful and versatile knowledge representation formalism. It allows us, for example, to describe the structure of the hand using description graphs, statements such as “if a bone in the hand is fractured, then the hand is fractured as well” using rules, and nonstructural aspects of the domain such as “a medical doctor is a person with an MD degree” using DLs.To study the computational properties of our formalism, we base the DL component on the \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$\mathcal{SHOIQ}^+$\end{document} description logic, as this DL provides the semantic underpinning of OWL 2. The resulting formalism is quite expressive, and it is unsurprising that it is undecidable. We investigate restrictions under which the formalism becomes decidable. In particular, we have observed that structured objects can often be described by a possibly large, yet bounded number of parts. For example, a human body consists of organs all of which can be decomposed into smaller parts; however, further decomposition will eventually lead to parts that one does not want or know how to describe any further. In this vein, FMA describes the skeleton of the hand, but it does not describe the internal structure of the distal phalanges of the fingers. The number of parts needed to describe the hand is therefore determined by the granularity of the hierarchical decomposition of the hand. This decomposition naturally defines an acyclic hierarchy of description graphs. For example, the fingers can be described by description graphs that are subordinate to that of the hand; however, the description graph for the hand is not naturally subordinate to the description graphs for the fingers. We used this observation to define an acyclicity restriction on description graphs. Acyclicity bounds the number of parts that one needs to reason with, which, provided that there are no DL axioms, can be used to obtain a decision procedure for the basic reasoning problems.If description graphs are used in combination with DL axioms, the acyclicity condition alone does not ensure decidability due to possible interactions between DL axioms, graphs, and rules [5]. To obtain decidability, we limit this interaction by imposing an additional condition on the usage of roles: the roles (i.e., the binary predicates) that can be used in DL axioms must be separated from the roles that can be used in rules. We developed a hypertableau-based [7] reasoning algorithm that decides the satisfiability problem for our formalism, together with tight complexity bounds.All proofs and additional decidability and complexity results for the case when DL axioms are expressed in \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$\mathcal{SHOIQ}^+$\end{document} can be found in [8]. More... »

PAGES

10-12

### Book

TITLE

Conceptual Structures: From Information to Intelligence

ISBN

978-3-642-14196-6
978-3-642-14197-3

### Identifiers

URI

http://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1007/978-3-642-14197-3_4

DOI

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14197-3_4

DIMENSIONS

https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1031554793

Indexing Status Check whether this publication has been indexed by Scopus and Web Of Science using the SN Indexing Status Tool
Incoming Citations Browse incoming citations for this publication using opencitations.net

JSON-LD is the canonical representation for SciGraph data.

TIP: You can open this SciGraph record using an external JSON-LD service:

[
{
"@context": "https://springernature.github.io/scigraph/jsonld/sgcontext.json",
{
"id": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/08",
"inDefinedTermSet": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/",
"name": "Information and Computing Sciences",
"type": "DefinedTerm"
},
{
"id": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/0802",
"inDefinedTermSet": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/",
"name": "Computation Theory and Mathematics",
"type": "DefinedTerm"
}
],
"author": [
{
"affiliation": {
"alternateName": "Computing Laboratory, University of Oxford, UK",
"id": "http://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.4991.5",
"name": [
"Computing Laboratory, University of Oxford, UK"
],
"type": "Organization"
},
"familyName": "Motik",
"givenName": "Boris",
"id": "sg:person.07401076267.36",
"sameAs": [
"https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.07401076267.36"
],
"type": "Person"
}
],
"datePublished": "2010",
"datePublishedReg": "2010-01-01",
"description": "The Web Ontology Language (OWL) is a well-known language for ontology modeling in the Semantic Web [9]. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is currently working on a revision of OWL\u2014called OWL 2 [2]\u2014whose main goal is to address some of the limitations of OWL. The formal underpinnings of OWL and OWL 2 are provided by description logics (DLs)[1]\u2013knowledge representation formalisms with well-understood formal properties.DLs are often used to describe structured objects\u2014objects whose parts are interconnected in complex ways. Such objects abound in molecular biology and the clinical sciences, and clinical ontologies such as GALEN, the Foundational Model of Anatomy (FMA), and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Thesaurus describe numerous structured objects. For example, FMA models the human hand as consisting of the fingers, the palm, various bones, blood vessels, and so on, all of which are highly interconnected.Modeling structured objects poses numerous problems to DLs and the OWL family of languages. The design of DLs has been driven by the desire to provide practically useful knowledge modeling primitives while ensuring decidability of the core reasoning problems. To achieve the latter goal, the modeling constructs available in DLs are usually carefully crafted so that the resulting language exhibits a variant of the tree-model property [10]: each satisfiable DL ontology always has at least one model whose elements are connected in a tree-like manner. This property can be used to derive a decision procedure; however, it also prevents one from accurately describing (usually non-tree-like) structured objects since, whenever a model exists, at least one model does not reflect the intended structure. This technical problem has severe consequences in practice [6]. In search of the \u201ccorrect\u201d way of describing structured objects, modelers often create overly complex descriptions; however, since the required expressive power is actually missing, such descriptions do not entail the consequences that would follow if the descriptions accurately captured the intended structure.In order to address this lack of expressivity, we extended DLs with description graphs, which can be understood as schema-level descriptions of structured objects. To allow for the representation of conditional statements about structured objects, we also incorporated first-order rules [3] into our extension. In this way we obtain a powerful and versatile knowledge representation formalism. It allows us, for example, to describe the structure of the hand using description graphs, statements such as \u201cif a bone in the hand is fractured, then the hand is fractured as well\u201d using rules, and nonstructural aspects of the domain such as \u201ca medical doctor is a person with an MD degree\u201d using DLs.To study the computational properties of our formalism, we base the DL component on the \\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\n\t\t\t\t\\usepackage{amsmath}\n\t\t\t\t\\usepackage{wasysym}\n\t\t\t\t\\usepackage{amsfonts}\n\t\t\t\t\\usepackage{amssymb}\n\t\t\t\t\\usepackage{amsbsy}\n\t\t\t\t\\usepackage{mathrsfs}\n\t\t\t\t\\usepackage{upgreek}\n\t\t\t\t\\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\n\t\t\t\t\\begin{document}$\\mathcal{SHOIQ}^+$\\end{document} description logic, as this DL provides the semantic underpinning of OWL 2. The resulting formalism is quite expressive, and it is unsurprising that it is undecidable. We investigate restrictions under which the formalism becomes decidable. In particular, we have observed that structured objects can often be described by a possibly large, yet bounded number of parts. For example, a human body consists of organs all of which can be decomposed into smaller parts; however, further decomposition will eventually lead to parts that one does not want or know how to describe any further. In this vein, FMA describes the skeleton of the hand, but it does not describe the internal structure of the distal phalanges of the fingers. The number of parts needed to describe the hand is therefore determined by the granularity of the hierarchical decomposition of the hand. This decomposition naturally defines an acyclic hierarchy of description graphs. For example, the fingers can be described by description graphs that are subordinate to that of the hand; however, the description graph for the hand is not naturally subordinate to the description graphs for the fingers. We used this observation to define an acyclicity restriction on description graphs. Acyclicity bounds the number of parts that one needs to reason with, which, provided that there are no DL axioms, can be used to obtain a decision procedure for the basic reasoning problems.If description graphs are used in combination with DL axioms, the acyclicity condition alone does not ensure decidability due to possible interactions between DL axioms, graphs, and rules [5]. To obtain decidability, we limit this interaction by imposing an additional condition on the usage of roles: the roles (i.e., the binary predicates) that can be used in DL axioms must be separated from the roles that can be used in rules. We developed a hypertableau-based [7] reasoning algorithm that decides the satisfiability problem for our formalism, together with tight complexity bounds.All proofs and additional decidability and complexity results for the case when DL axioms are expressed in \\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\n\t\t\t\t\\usepackage{amsmath}\n\t\t\t\t\\usepackage{wasysym}\n\t\t\t\t\\usepackage{amsfonts}\n\t\t\t\t\\usepackage{amssymb}\n\t\t\t\t\\usepackage{amsbsy}\n\t\t\t\t\\usepackage{mathrsfs}\n\t\t\t\t\\usepackage{upgreek}\n\t\t\t\t\\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\n\t\t\t\t\\begin{document}$\\mathcal{SHOIQ}^+$\\end{document} can be found in [8].",
"editor": [
{
"familyName": "Croitoru",
"type": "Person"
},
{
"familyName": "Ferr\u00e9",
"givenName": "S\u00e9bastien",
"type": "Person"
},
{
"familyName": "Lukose",
"givenName": "Dickson",
"type": "Person"
}
],
"genre": "chapter",
"id": "sg:pub.10.1007/978-3-642-14197-3_4",
"inLanguage": "en",
"isAccessibleForFree": false,
"isPartOf": {
"isbn": [
"978-3-642-14196-6",
"978-3-642-14197-3"
],
"name": "Conceptual Structures: From Information to Intelligence",
"type": "Book"
},
"keywords": [
"knowledge representation formalism",
"description logics",
"structured objects",
"DL axioms",
"OWL 2",
"description graph",
"representation formalism",
"World Wide Web Consortium",
"Web Ontology Language",
"reasoning problems",
"lack of expressivity",
"basic reasoning problems",
"first-order rules",
"number of parts",
"decision procedure",
"Ontology Language",
"Semantic Web",
"tight complexity bounds",
"formal underpinning",
"modeling primitives",
"modeling constructs",
"DL ontologies",
"DL components",
"reasoning algorithm",
"expressive power",
"clinical ontologies",
"hierarchical decomposition",
"Foundational Model",
"tree model property",
"complexity results",
"semantic underpinnings",
"satisfiability problem",
"complexity bounds",
"intended structure",
"computational properties",
"ontology",
"tree-like manner",
"conditional statements",
"graph",
"National Cancer Institute Thesaurus",
"owls",
"human hand",
"formal properties",
"objects",
"language",
"logic",
"complex description",
"such descriptions",
"decidability",
"main goal",
"such objects",
"rules",
"primitives",
"thesaurus",
"granularity",
"numerous problems",
"technical problems",
"algorithm",
"Web",
"formalism",
"modelers",
"axioms",
"example",
"goal",
"way",
"small part",
"acyclicity condition",
"model",
"representation",
"medical doctors",
"usage",
"FMA",
"description",
"human body",
"search",
"expressivity",
"decomposition",
"hierarchy",
"latter goal",
"hand",
"proof",
"severe consequences",
"domain",
"number",
"acyclicity",
"bounds",
"design",
"part",
"extension",
"internal structure",
"limitations",
"finger",
"order",
"restriction",
"science",
"consortium",
"complex ways",
"statements",
"aspects",
"manner",
"structure",
"power",
"doctors",
"further decomposition",
"components",
"interaction",
"variants",
"procedure",
"persons",
"results",
"elements",
"molecular biology",
"lack",
"constructs",
"practice",
"combination",
"underpinnings",
"desire",
"skeleton",
"properties",
"clinical science",
"possible interactions",
"cases",
"degree",
"palm",
"anatomy",
"conditions",
"role",
"biology",
"consequences",
"body",
"revision",
"observations",
"blood vessels",
"Galen",
"family",
"vessels",
"phalanx",
"bone",
"organs",
"vein",
"distal phalanx",
"problem",
"MD degree"
],
"name": "Combining Description Logics, Description Graphs, and Rules",
"pagination": "10-12",
"productId": [
{
"name": "dimensions_id",
"type": "PropertyValue",
"value": [
"pub.1031554793"
]
},
{
"name": "doi",
"type": "PropertyValue",
"value": [
"10.1007/978-3-642-14197-3_4"
]
}
],
"publisher": {
"name": "Springer Nature",
"type": "Organisation"
},
"sameAs": [
"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14197-3_4",
"https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1031554793"
],
"sdDataset": "chapters",
"sdDatePublished": "2022-05-20T07:48",
"sdPublisher": {
"name": "Springer Nature - SN SciGraph project",
"type": "Organization"
},
"sdSource": "s3://com-springernature-scigraph/baseset/20220519/entities/gbq_results/chapter/chapter_454.jsonl",
"type": "Chapter",
"url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14197-3_4"
}
]

HOW TO GET THIS DATA PROGRAMMATICALLY:

JSON-LD is a popular format for linked data which is fully compatible with JSON.

curl -H 'Accept: application/ld+json' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1007/978-3-642-14197-3_4'

N-Triples is a line-based linked data format ideal for batch operations.

curl -H 'Accept: application/n-triples' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1007/978-3-642-14197-3_4'

curl -H 'Accept: text/turtle' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1007/978-3-642-14197-3_4'

RDF/XML is a standard XML format for linked data.

curl -H 'Accept: application/rdf+xml' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1007/978-3-642-14197-3_4'

This table displays all metadata directly associated to this object as RDF triples.

215 TRIPLES      23 PREDICATES      171 URIs      164 LITERALS      7 BLANK NODES

Subject Predicate Object
2 anzsrc-for:0802
3 schema:author N122db9aefe684299ac2a6616c5aea105
4 schema:datePublished 2010
5 schema:datePublishedReg 2010-01-01
6 schema:description The Web Ontology Language (OWL) is a well-known language for ontology modeling in the Semantic Web [9]. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is currently working on a revision of OWL—called OWL 2 [2]—whose main goal is to address some of the limitations of OWL. The formal underpinnings of OWL and OWL 2 are provided by description logics (DLs)[1]–knowledge representation formalisms with well-understood formal properties.DLs are often used to describe structured objects—objects whose parts are interconnected in complex ways. Such objects abound in molecular biology and the clinical sciences, and clinical ontologies such as GALEN, the Foundational Model of Anatomy (FMA), and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Thesaurus describe numerous structured objects. For example, FMA models the human hand as consisting of the fingers, the palm, various bones, blood vessels, and so on, all of which are highly interconnected.Modeling structured objects poses numerous problems to DLs and the OWL family of languages. The design of DLs has been driven by the desire to provide practically useful knowledge modeling primitives while ensuring decidability of the core reasoning problems. To achieve the latter goal, the modeling constructs available in DLs are usually carefully crafted so that the resulting language exhibits a variant of the tree-model property [10]: each satisfiable DL ontology always has at least one model whose elements are connected in a tree-like manner. This property can be used to derive a decision procedure; however, it also prevents one from accurately describing (usually non-tree-like) structured objects since, whenever a model exists, at least one model does not reflect the intended structure. This technical problem has severe consequences in practice [6]. In search of the “correct” way of describing structured objects, modelers often create overly complex descriptions; however, since the required expressive power is actually missing, such descriptions do not entail the consequences that would follow if the descriptions accurately captured the intended structure.In order to address this lack of expressivity, we extended DLs with description graphs, which can be understood as schema-level descriptions of structured objects. To allow for the representation of conditional statements about structured objects, we also incorporated first-order rules [3] into our extension. In this way we obtain a powerful and versatile knowledge representation formalism. It allows us, for example, to describe the structure of the hand using description graphs, statements such as “if a bone in the hand is fractured, then the hand is fractured as well” using rules, and nonstructural aspects of the domain such as “a medical doctor is a person with an MD degree” using DLs.To study the computational properties of our formalism, we base the DL component on the \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$\mathcal{SHOIQ}^+$\end{document} description logic, as this DL provides the semantic underpinning of OWL 2. The resulting formalism is quite expressive, and it is unsurprising that it is undecidable. We investigate restrictions under which the formalism becomes decidable. In particular, we have observed that structured objects can often be described by a possibly large, yet bounded number of parts. For example, a human body consists of organs all of which can be decomposed into smaller parts; however, further decomposition will eventually lead to parts that one does not want or know how to describe any further. In this vein, FMA describes the skeleton of the hand, but it does not describe the internal structure of the distal phalanges of the fingers. The number of parts needed to describe the hand is therefore determined by the granularity of the hierarchical decomposition of the hand. This decomposition naturally defines an acyclic hierarchy of description graphs. For example, the fingers can be described by description graphs that are subordinate to that of the hand; however, the description graph for the hand is not naturally subordinate to the description graphs for the fingers. We used this observation to define an acyclicity restriction on description graphs. Acyclicity bounds the number of parts that one needs to reason with, which, provided that there are no DL axioms, can be used to obtain a decision procedure for the basic reasoning problems.If description graphs are used in combination with DL axioms, the acyclicity condition alone does not ensure decidability due to possible interactions between DL axioms, graphs, and rules [5]. To obtain decidability, we limit this interaction by imposing an additional condition on the usage of roles: the roles (i.e., the binary predicates) that can be used in DL axioms must be separated from the roles that can be used in rules. We developed a hypertableau-based [7] reasoning algorithm that decides the satisfiability problem for our formalism, together with tight complexity bounds.All proofs and additional decidability and complexity results for the case when DL axioms are expressed in \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$\mathcal{SHOIQ}^+$\end{document} can be found in [8].
7 schema:editor N1026586a85c748faac2d0679530bb4c1
8 schema:genre chapter
9 schema:inLanguage en
10 schema:isAccessibleForFree false
11 schema:isPartOf N42eef05997e14e588733a84e40778c43
12 schema:keywords DL axioms
13 DL components
14 DL ontologies
15 FMA
16 Foundational Model
17 Galen
18 MD degree
19 National Cancer Institute Thesaurus
20 OWL 2
21 Ontology Language
22 Semantic Web
23 Web
24 Web Ontology Language
25 World Wide Web Consortium
26 acyclicity
27 acyclicity condition
29 algorithm
30 anatomy
31 aspects
32 axioms
33 basic reasoning problems
34 biology
35 blood vessels
36 body
37 bone
38 bounds
39 cases
40 clinical ontologies
41 clinical science
42 combination
43 complex description
44 complex ways
45 complexity bounds
46 complexity results
47 components
48 computational properties
49 conditional statements
50 conditions
51 consequences
52 consortium
53 constructs
54 decidability
55 decision procedure
56 decomposition
57 degree
58 description
59 description graph
60 description logics
61 design
62 desire
63 distal phalanx
64 doctors
65 domain
66 elements
67 example
68 expressive power
69 expressivity
70 extension
71 family
72 finger
73 first-order rules
74 formal properties
75 formal underpinning
76 formalism
77 further decomposition
78 goal
79 granularity
80 graph
81 hand
82 hierarchical decomposition
83 hierarchy
84 human body
85 human hand
86 intended structure
87 interaction
88 internal structure
89 knowledge representation formalism
90 lack
91 lack of expressivity
92 language
93 latter goal
94 limitations
95 logic
96 main goal
97 manner
98 medical doctors
99 model
100 modelers
101 modeling constructs
102 modeling primitives
103 molecular biology
104 number
105 number of parts
106 numerous problems
107 objects
108 observations
109 ontology
110 order
111 organs
112 owls
113 palm
114 part
115 persons
116 phalanx
117 possible interactions
118 power
119 practice
120 primitives
121 problem
122 procedure
123 proof
124 properties
125 reasoning algorithm
126 reasoning problems
127 representation
128 representation formalism
129 restriction
130 results
131 revision
132 role
133 rules
134 satisfiability problem
135 science
136 search
137 semantic underpinnings
138 severe consequences
139 skeleton
140 small part
141 statements
142 structure
143 structured objects
144 such descriptions
145 such objects
146 technical problems
147 thesaurus
148 tight complexity bounds
149 tree model property
150 tree-like manner
151 underpinnings
152 usage
153 variants
154 vein
155 vessels
156 way
157 schema:name Combining Description Logics, Description Graphs, and Rules
158 schema:pagination 10-12
159 schema:productId N255d4d383dbd4db5934dce105bbbdf44
160 N954d56d27f9849a28c8ca550bc949e45
161 schema:publisher N644abe6d38ba48dca4d8a49d57968654
162 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1031554793
163 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14197-3_4
164 schema:sdDatePublished 2022-05-20T07:48
166 schema:sdPublisher N4690a95b211f4b51a165ebb3cb607072
167 schema:url https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14197-3_4
169 sgo:sdDataset chapters
170 rdf:type schema:Chapter
171 N0812b125244e49b3bcaa300a53c40bdd rdf:first N15d8aecd704646eebfc0c6a87d7f8657
172 rdf:rest N13bcdbda3bc24a31afcc1270b30a7cb9
173 N1026586a85c748faac2d0679530bb4c1 rdf:first N9fcd6cef9c9445e9b28c7f8b338bbc6a
174 rdf:rest N0812b125244e49b3bcaa300a53c40bdd
175 N122db9aefe684299ac2a6616c5aea105 rdf:first sg:person.07401076267.36
176 rdf:rest rdf:nil
177 N13bcdbda3bc24a31afcc1270b30a7cb9 rdf:first N83d446bd8fe641bea0cf05a240deb86b
178 rdf:rest rdf:nil
179 N15d8aecd704646eebfc0c6a87d7f8657 schema:familyName Ferré
180 schema:givenName Sébastien
181 rdf:type schema:Person
182 N255d4d383dbd4db5934dce105bbbdf44 schema:name doi
183 schema:value 10.1007/978-3-642-14197-3_4
184 rdf:type schema:PropertyValue
185 N42eef05997e14e588733a84e40778c43 schema:isbn 978-3-642-14196-6
186 978-3-642-14197-3
187 schema:name Conceptual Structures: From Information to Intelligence
188 rdf:type schema:Book
189 N4690a95b211f4b51a165ebb3cb607072 schema:name Springer Nature - SN SciGraph project
190 rdf:type schema:Organization
191 N644abe6d38ba48dca4d8a49d57968654 schema:name Springer Nature
192 rdf:type schema:Organisation
193 N83d446bd8fe641bea0cf05a240deb86b schema:familyName Lukose
194 schema:givenName Dickson
195 rdf:type schema:Person
196 N954d56d27f9849a28c8ca550bc949e45 schema:name dimensions_id
197 schema:value pub.1031554793
198 rdf:type schema:PropertyValue
199 N9fcd6cef9c9445e9b28c7f8b338bbc6a schema:familyName Croitoru
201 rdf:type schema:Person
202 anzsrc-for:08 schema:inDefinedTermSet anzsrc-for:
203 schema:name Information and Computing Sciences
204 rdf:type schema:DefinedTerm
205 anzsrc-for:0802 schema:inDefinedTermSet anzsrc-for:
206 schema:name Computation Theory and Mathematics
207 rdf:type schema:DefinedTerm
208 sg:person.07401076267.36 schema:affiliation grid-institutes:grid.4991.5
209 schema:familyName Motik
210 schema:givenName Boris
211 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.07401076267.36
212 rdf:type schema:Person
213 grid-institutes:grid.4991.5 schema:alternateName Computing Laboratory, University of Oxford, UK
214 schema:name Computing Laboratory, University of Oxford, UK
215 rdf:type schema:Organization