W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2004

Re: Concept Map VS Topic Map.

From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 22:27:25 -0400
Message-ID: <41216D0D.3020408@comcast.net>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Lynn, James (Software Services) wrote:
> Tom,
> Do you happen to have an example of how to prove theoroms using CGs?

If you can find a copy of John Sowa's 1984 book "Conceptual Structures",
he covers this starting on page 150.  Also see  p 10 ff in "Conceptual 
Graphs for Knowledge Representation", Mineau, G., Moulin, B., and Sowa, 
J. (eds) (1993).  Sowa's book "Knowledge Representation" (2000) Also has 
some material starting on page 301.

> I'm thinking primarily about the mechanical (coding) aspects. It it
> just "path crunching"?

The rules of inference for CGs can be found at


I don't know anything about coding aspects, however.  I do know that 
it's not just "path crunching", though.  Here is a part of the URL 
referenced above -

"# Erasure. In a positive context, any graph u may be replaced by a 
generalization of u; in particular, u may be erased (i.e. replaced by 
the blank, which is a generalization of every CG).

# Insertion. In a negative context, any graph u may be replaced by a 
specialization of u; in particular, any graph may be inserted (i.e. it 
may replace the blank).

# Iteration. If a graph u occurs in a context C, another copy of u may 
be drawn in the same context C or in any context nested in C.

# Deiteration. Any graph u that could have been derived by iteration may 
be erased.

# Equivalence. Any equivalence rule (copy, simplify, or double negation) 
may be performed on any graph or subgraph in any context."

You could ask on the CG list, cg@cs.uah.edu.


Tom P

Thomas B. Passin
Explorer's Guide to the Semantic Web (Manning Books)
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2004 02:26:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:52 UTC