Off to new shores

In the last years, the main orientation of Formal Concept Analysis (FCA) has turned from mathematics towards computer science. This article provides a review of this new orientation and analyzes why and how FCA and computer science attracted each other. It discusses FCA as a knowledge representation formalism using five knowledge representation principles provided by Davis, Shrobe, and Szolovits [DSS93]. It then studies how and why mathematics-based researchers got attracted by computer science. We will argue for continuing this trend by integrating the two research areas FCA and Ontology Engineering. The second part of the article discusses three lines of research which witness the new orientation of Formal Concept Analysis: FCA as a conceptual clustering technique and its application for supporting the merging of ontologies; the efficient computation of association rules and the structuring of the results; and the visualization and management of conceptual hierarchies and ontologies including its application in an email management system.

Conceptual knowledge processing with formal concept analysis and ontologies

Among many other knowledge representations formalisms, Ontologies and Formal Concept Analysis (FCA) aim at modeling ‘concepts’. We discuss how these two formalisms may complement another from an application point of view. In particular, we will see how FCA can be used to support Ontology Engineering, and how ontologies can be exploited in FCA applications. The interplay of FCA and ontologies is studied along the life cycle of an ontology: (i) FCA can support the building of the ontology as a learning technique. (ii) The established ontology can be analyzed and navigated by using techniques of FCA. (iii) Last but not least, the ontology may be used to improve an FCA application.

Semantic network analysis of ontologies

A key argument for modeling knowledge in ontologies is the easy re-use and re-engineering of the knowledge. However, beside consistency checking, current ontology engineering tools provide only basic functionalities for analyzing ontologies. Since ontologies can be considered as (labeled, directed) graphs, graph analysis techniques are a suitable answer for this need. Graph analysis has been performed by sociologists for over 60 years, and resulted in the vivid research area of Social Network Analysis (SNA). While social network structures in general currently receive high attention in the Semantic Web community, there are only very few SNA applications up to now, and virtually none for analyzing the structure of ontologies. We illustrate in this paper the benefits of applying SNA to ontologies and the Semantic Web, and discuss which research topics arise on the edge between the two areas. In particular, we discuss how different notions of centrality describe the core content and structure of an ontology. From the rather simple notion of degree centrality over betweenness centrality to the more complex eigenvector centrality based on Hermitian matrices, we illustrate the insights these measures provide on two ontologies, which are different in purpose, scope, and size.