Types, structures and theories in NKI

doi:10.1007/s11704-008-0032-9

Front. Comput. Sci.

0, Vol.

Issue () : 451-459 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-008-0032-9

Types, structures and theories in NKI

ZHANG Xiaoru¹, ZHANG Zaiyue¹, SUI Yuefei²

1.School of Computer Sciences and Engineering, Jiangsu University of Science and Technology; 2.Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences;

Download: PDF(150 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract The National Knowledge Infrastructure (NKI) is a multi-domain knowledge base. The classical type theory is no longer appropriate to describe every kind of object in multi-domains, such as artifacts, natural or micro objects. Three different kinds of type theories are defined: the classical, atomic and pseudo type theories; in the classical type theory, two new type constructors are defined: setm and ∨, to describe the types of sets of all the elements of the types and unions of two sets of different types, respectively. The structures and categories in the type theory are defined, and the sub-structures and homomorphic structures are used to describe the part-of relations that give the algebraic specifications for the natural objects and the part-of relations between the natural objects, micro objects and artifacts.

Issue Date: 05 December 2008

Cite this article:

ZHANG Zaiyue,ZHANG Xiaoru,SUI Yuefei. Types, structures and theories in NKI[J]. Front. Comput. Sci., 0, (): 451-459.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fcs/EN/10.1007/s11704-008-0032-9
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fcs/EN/Y0/V/I/451

1	Andrews P . AnIntroduction to Mathematical Logic and Type Theory: to truth throughproof. Applied Logic Series 27. Dordrecht : Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002
2	Hindley J R . Basic Simple Type Theory. Cambridge UniversityPress, 1997
3	Pierce B C . Types and Programming Languages. MIT Press, 2002
4	Astesiano E, Bidoit M, Kirchner H, et al.. CASL: The common algebraic specification language. Theoretical Computer Science, 2002, 286(2): 153–196. doi:10.1016/S0304-3975(01)00368-1
5	McGuinness D . Ontologiescome of age. In: Fensel D, et al., eds. The Semantic Web: Why, What, andHow . MIT Press 2002
6	Gómez-Pérez A, Corcho O . Ontology language for thesemantic web. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 2002, 54–60
7	Cao C, Feng Q Z, Gao Y, et al.. Progress in the development of National KnowledgeInfrastructure. Journal of Computer Scienceand Technology, 2002 (17): 1–16
8	Gu F, Cao C, Sui Y, et al.. Domain-specific ontology of botany. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 2004 (19): 238–248
9	Margolis E, Laurence S . Concepts: Core Readings. MIT Press, 1999
10	Sowa J F . Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and ComputationalFoundations. Brooks Cole Publishing Co., 2000
11	Baader F, CalvaneseD, McGuinness D L, et al., eds. The Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge University Press, 2002
12	Simons P . Parts:A Study in Ontology. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1987
13	Varzi A C . Basic problems of mereotopology. In: GuarinoN, ed. Formal Ontology in InformationSystems. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 1998 : 29–38
14	Winston M E, Chaffin R, and Hermann D . A taxonomy of part-whole relations. Cognitive Science, 1987 (11): 417–444
15	van Eijck J, Unger C . Computational Semantics withFunctional Programming, Chapters 1–6, http://homepages.cwi.nl/jve/cs/cs.pdf
16	Rajasekaran P . Computationalsemantics and type theory and its influence on semantic web and relatedapplications-An introduction. Essay M S,LSDIS Lab, Computer Science Department, University of Georgia, Athens, 2004

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed