Reasoning about Taxonomies and Articulations

Post Workshop Proceedings - EDBT 2008 Ph.D. Workshop

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 11-19

  Thau, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGENT COMMUNICATIONS; DATA INTEGRATIONS; DESCRIPTION LOGICS; FIRST ORDERS; INFORMATION NAVIGATIONS; PARALLEL PROCESSING; PROPOSITIONAL LOGICS; SEARCH SPACES;

AUTONOMOUS AGENTS; CODES (SYMBOLS); DATA DESCRIPTION; FORMAL LOGIC; INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH; INTEGRATION; TECHNICAL PRESENTATIONS;

TAXONOMIES;

EID: 57449110348     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1387150.1387153     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (32)

1. The taxonomic concept schema. http://tdwg.napier.ac.uk/, February 2008.
2. The taxonomic data working group. http://www.tdwg.org/, February 2008.
3. L. Bachmair, H. Ganzinger, and U. Waldmann. Set constraints are the monadic class. In Logic in Computer Science, pages 75-83, 1993.
4. J. H. Beach, S. Pramanik, and J. H. Beaman. Hierarchic taxonomic databases. In R. Fortuner, editor, Advances in Computer Methods for Systematic Biology: Artificial Intelligence, Databases, Computer Vision, chapter 15, pages 241-256. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1993.
5. B. Bennett. Spatial Reasoning with Propositional Logics. In J. Doyle, E. Sandewall, and P. Torasso, editors, KR'94: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 51-62. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, California, 1994.
6. L. D. Benson. A treatise on the north american ranunculi. American Midland Naturalist, 40:1-261, 1948.
7. W. G. Berendsohn. The concept of "potential taxa" in databases. Taxon, 44:207-212, 1995.
8. W. G. Berendsohn. MoReTax - Handling Factual Information Linked to Taxonomic Concepts in Biology. Number 39 in Schriftenreihe für Vegetationskunde. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, 2003.
9. R. Brachman. What is-a is and isn't: An analysis of taxonomic links in semantic networks. IEEE Computer, 16:30-36, 1983.
10. P. D. Cantino and K. de Queiroz. Phylocode: a phylogenetic code of biological nomenclature. 2006.
11. H. H. Do and E. Rahm. Coma - a system for flexible combination of schema matching approaches. In VLDB, pages 610-621. Morgan Kaufmann, 2002.
12. B. Ganter and R. Wille. Formal Concept Analysis: Mathematical Foundations. Springer, Heidelberg, 1999.
13. M. Geoffroy and A. Güntsch. Assembling and navigating the potential taxon graph. [8], pages 71-82.
14. F. Giunchiglia, M. Yatskevich, and P. Shvaiko. Semantic matching: Algorithms and implementation. J. Data Semantics, 9:1-38, 2007.
15. Y. Kalfoglou and M. Schorlemmer. Ontology mapping: the state of the art. Knowl. Eng. Rev., 18(1):1-31, 2003.
16. J. T. Kartesz. Synthesis of north american flora. BONAP, North Carolina Botanical Garden, 2004.
17. J. Kennedy, R. Kukla, and T. Paterson. Scientific names are ambiguous as identifiers for biological taxa: Their context and definition are required for accurate data integration. In 2nd Intl. Workshop on Data Integration in the Life Sciences (DILS), LNCS 3615, pages 80-95, July 2005.
18. W. McCune. Prover9 Manual. Argonne National Laboratory.
19. W. McCune. Mace4 reference manual and guide. Technical Report ANL/MCS-TM-264, Argonne National Laboratory, August 2003.
20. D. L. McGuinness. Ontologies come of age. In D. Fensel, J. A. Hendler, H. Lieberman, and W. Wahlster, editors, Spinning the Semantic Web, pages 171-194. MIT Press, 2003.
21. R. J. Miller, M. A. Hernández, L. M. Haas, L.-L. Yan, C. T. H. Ho, R. Fagin, and L. Popa. The clio project: Managing heterogeneity. SIGMOD Record, 30(1):78-83, 2001.
22. N. F. Noy and M. A. Musen. The PROMPT suite: interactive tools for ontology merging and mapping. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(6):983-1024, 2003.
23. R. K. Peet. Ranunculus data set. June 2005.
24. E. Rahm and P. A. Bernstein. A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. VLDB J., 10(4):334-350, 2001.
25. D. A. Randell, Z. Cui, and A. Cohn. A Spatial Logic Based on Regions and Connection. In B. Nebel, C. Rich, and W. Swartout, editors, KR'92. Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Third International Conference, pages 165-176. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, California, 1992.
26. J. Renz and B. Nebel. On the complexity of qualitative spatial reasoning: A maximal tractable fragment of the region connection calculus. Artif. Intell., 108(1-2):69-123, 1999.
27. L. Serafini and A. Tamilin. Drago: Distributed reasoning architecture for the semantic web. In A. Gómez-Pérez and J. Euzenat, editors, ESWC, volume 3532 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 361-376. Springer, 2005.
28. P. Shvaido and J. Euzenat. Ontology Matching. Springer, Heidelberg, 2007.
29. H. Stuckenschmidt, L. Serafini, and H. Wache. Reasoning about ontology mappings. Technical report, ITC-IRST, Trento, 2005.
30. th International Joint Conference on Artificial, pages 225-234, 2001.
31. D. Thau and B. Ludascher. Reasoning about taxonomies in first-order logic. Ecological Informatics, 2(3):195-209, Oct 2007.
32. M. Wessel. On spatial reasoning with description logics-position paper. In I. Horrocks and S. Tessaris, editors, Proceedings of the International Workshop in Description Logics, pages 156-163, Touluse, France, April 2002. CEUR Workshop Proceedings.