WWW/Internet - Portal do Software Público Brasileiro

ISBN: 978-972-8939-25-0 © 2010 IADISIt is important to observe that the concept that has a higher score is more similar to the concept “banana”,i.e. more analogous.Table 2. Matches for analogy between relations related to banana with other conceptsFirst Search:LocationOf(banana, fruit bowl)LocationOf(car, gas station)LocationOf(paper, library)LocationOf(legume, refrigerator)Third Search:IsA(banana, fruit)IsA(car, vehicle)IsA(dog, animal)IsA(woman, human)Fifth Search:MadeOf(ice cream, banana)MadeOf(cheese, milk)MadeOf(bacon, pig)MadeOf(table, wood)Second Search:UsedFor(banana, eat)UsedFor(doll, play)UsedFor(computer, work)UsedFor(pencil, write)Fourth Search:PropertyOf(banana, yellow)PropertyOf(woman, pretty)PropertyOf(cat, cute)PropertyOf(fruit, sweet)Taking into consideration the matches of Table 2, the prototype gives us the analogies concepts based inMinsky’s relation. Some examples are illustrated in Table 3.Table 3. Analogous concepts related to banana order by ScoreConcept Score Number of Search (Table 2)Car 2 first and thirdWoman 2 third and fourthDog 1 thirdLegume 1 FirstObserving the results of Table 3, we can see that the concepts are analogous just because they are linkedthrough the same Minsky’s relations. For example, in the Table 3, we can observe that the concept “car” wasconsidered analogy because it has two same relations (LocationOf and IsA) but these relations are notspecific, i.e., there are a lot of concepts in semantic network with them although we do not identify analogyamong the concepts. It is worth saying that these results showed us that it is not feasible to consider anyMinsky’s relation to generate analogies. Thus, things like car, dog and woman are considered by thisprototype analogous to banana. On the other hand, we did not consider that a good result. The kind ofrelations used by Gentner are more specific and give a stronger semantic. In order to allow that Minsky’srelation could have these characteristics, we propose a strategy that combines Gentner’s theory and Minsky’smodel to expand its potential. This strategy that we named as meta-relation is described in the next section.4. DEFINITION OF META-RELATIONThe relations used in Gentner’s theory are flexible and have a semantic that can be an action or acharacteristic, while Minsky’s relations are established, approximately 20 (Liu and Singh, 2004). In order toenhance the potential of Minsky’s model, we create a strategy to combine his relations to generate moreflexible and specific ones named meta-relations.The meta-relations have two properties: flexibility and specificity. Flexibility because the meta-relationsare created from the set of relations and concepts in semantic network and when it increases, new metarelationscan be generated. Specificity because in the meta-relation there are the same characteristics as theones Gentner uses, such as action and/or characteristic.One way to create a meta-relation is combine the relations CapableOf and UsedFor from Minsky’srelations, represented as follow:38