A knowledge-based system for prototypical reasoning

References

• Adams, B., & Raubal, M. (2009). A metric conceptual space algebra. In K. S. Hornsby, C. Claramunt, M. Denis, & G. Ligozat(Eds.), COSIT (pp. 51–68). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5756. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Bonatti, P. A., Lutz, C., & Wolter, F. (2006, June 2–5). Description logics with circumscription. In P. Doherty, J. Mylopoulos, & C. A. Welty(Eds.), Proceedings of the tenth international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning, Lake District of the United Kingdom (pp. 400–410). Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brachman, R. J., & Levesque, H. J. (1985). Readings in knowledge representation. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.
   Google Scholar
• Brachman, R. J., & Levesque, H. J. (2004). Knowledge representation and reasoning. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Brachmann, R. J., & Schmolze, J. G. (1985). An overview of the KL-ONE knowledge representation system. Cognitive Science, 9(2), 171–202. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0902_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calegari, S., & Ciucci, D. (2007). Fuzzy ontology, fuzzy description logics and fuzzy-owl. In F. Masulli, S. Mitra, & G. Pasi(Eds.), Applications of fuzzy sets theory (pp. 118–126). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Chella, A., Frixione, M., & Gaglio, S. (1997). A cognitive architecture for artificial vision. Artificial Intelligence, 89(1–2), 73–111. doi: 10.1016/S0004-3702(96)00039-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eliasmith, C., Stewart, T. C., Choo, X., Bekolay, T., DeWolf, T., Tang, Y., & Rasmussen, D. (2012). A large-scale model of the functioning brain. Science, 338(6111), 1202–1205. doi: 10.1126/science.1225266
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. St. B. T., & Frankish, K..(Eds.). In two minds: Dual processes and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frixione, M., & Lieto, A. (2010, October 25–28). The computational representation of concepts in formal ontologies some general considerations. In J. Filipe & J. L. G. Dietz(Eds.), KEOD 2010 – Proceedings of the international conference on knowledge engineering and ontology development, Valencia, Spain (pp. 396–403). Lisboa, Portugal: SciTePress.
   Google Scholar
• Frixione, M., & Lieto, A. (2012). Representing concepts in formal ontologies: Compositionality vs. typicality effects. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 21(4), 391–414.
   Google Scholar
• Frixione, M., & Lieto, A. (2013). Representing non classical concepts in formal ontologies: Prototypes and exemplars. In C. Lai, G. Semeraro, & E. Vargiu(Eds.), New challenges in distributed information filtering and retrieval, Studies in Computational Intelligence, 439 (pp. 171–182). Berlin: Spinger.
   Google Scholar
• Frixione, M., & Lieto, A. (2014a). Towards an extended model of conceptual representations in formal ontologies: A typicality-based proposal. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 20(3), 257–276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frixione, M., & Lieto, A. (2014b). Formal ontologies and semantic technologies: A dual process proposal for concept representation. Philosophia Scientiae, 18(3), 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Gärdenfors, P. (2000). Conceptual spaces: The geometry of thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gärdenfors, P. (2014). The geometry of meaning: Semantics based on conceptual spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Giordano, L., Gliozzi, V., Olivetti, N., & Pozzato, G. L. (2013). A non-monotonic description logic for reasoning about typicality. Artificial Intelligence, 195, 165–202. doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2012.10.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gruber, T. (2009). Ontology. In L. Liu & M. Tamer Özsu(Eds.), Encyclopedia of database systems (pp. 1963–1965). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Jansen, B. J., Booth, D. L., & Spink, A. (2008). Determining the informational, navigational, and transactional intent of web queries. Information Processing & Management, 44(3), 1251–1266. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2007.07.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1980). Mental models in cognitive science. Cognitive Science, 4(1), 71–115. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0401_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. H. (2000). Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics and speech. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
   Google Scholar
• Khemlani, S., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2013). The processes of inference. Argument & Computation, 4(1), 4–20. doi: 10.1080/19462166.2012.674060
   Google Scholar
• Larue, O., Poirier, P., & Nkambou, R. (2012). A cognitive architecture based on cognitive/neurological dual-system theories. In F. M. Zanzotto, S. Tsumoto, N. Taatgen, & Y. Yao(Eds.), Brain informatics (pp. 288–299). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lesmo, L. (2007). The rule-based parser of the NLP group of the university of Torino. Intelligenza Artificiale, 2(4), 46–47.
   Google Scholar
• Machery, E. (2009). Doing without concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Masolo, C., Borgo, S., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., & Oltramari, A. (2003). WonderWeb deliverable D18 ontology library (final). Technical report, IST Project 2001-33052 WonderWeb: Ontology Infrastructure for the Semantic Web.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, G. A. (1995). WordNet: A lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM, 38(11), 39–41. doi: 10.1145/219717.219748
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P. Winston(Ed.) The psychology of computer vision (pp. 211–277). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, G. L. (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nardi, D., & Brachman, R. J. (2003). An introduction to description logics. In F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D. L. McGuinness, D. Nardi, & P. F. Patel-Schneider(Eds.), Description logic handbook (pp. 1–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pilato, G., Augello, A., & Gaglio, S. (2011). A modular architecture for adaptive ChatBots. Proceedings of the IEEE fifth international conference on semantic computing, Palo Alto, CA, USA. New York, NY: IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Quillian, R. (1968). Semantic memory (pp. 216–270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 192–233. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.192
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A., & Newell, A. (1971). Human problem solving: The state of the theory in 1970. American Psychologist, 26(2), 145–159. doi: 10.1037/h0030806
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, E. R., & Branscombe, N. R. (1988). Category accessibility as implicit memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24(6), 490–504. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(88)90048-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645–665. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00003435
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Straccia, U. (2011). Reasoning within fuzzy description logics. Retrieved from arXiv preprint arXiv:1106.0667.
   Google Scholar
• Thagard, P., & Findlay, S. (2012). The cognitive science of science: Explanation, discovery, and conceptual change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophische untersuchungen-Philosophical investigations. Oxford: B. Blackwell.
   Google Scholar