Mapping conceptual relations

Mapping Conceptual Relations to Spatial Relations Examples from an ASL Science... 

Finally, the type of mapping described above is consistent with the constraints laid out in Gattis (this volume) for mapping between conceptual and spatial schemas. For example, the principle of iconicity constrains the mapping from the location and movement of the hands to the location and movement of objects described (whether abstract or concrete). Structural similarities constrain the mapping of relational structures, e.g., elements are mapped to elements (the hands to concepts) and relations are mapped to relations (the spatial relation of the hands is mapped to the relation of concepts, as in the poetry example). 

Structural similarity in children s reasoning with graphs The experiments described above and the patterns noted by Emmorey and Tversky (see chapters from each in this volume) lend support to the hypothesis that structural similarity constrains the mapping of simple relational structures—elements and the relations between elements—in conceptual and spatial schemas. Structural similarity also predicts, however, that similarity of more complex relational structures can influence mappings of conceptual and spatial schemas. Specifically, structural similarity claims that conceptual elements are mapped to spatial elements, conceptual relations are mapped to spatial relations, and higher-order conceptual relations are... 

Gattis, M., and Holyoak, K. J. (1996). Mapping conceptual to spatial relations in visual reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 231-239. 

Construct validity. Construct validity refers to the validity with which cause and effect operations are labeled in theory-relevant or generalizable terms. In other words, a study needs to have clearly defined theoretical concepts and conceptual relations as well as clearly specified mappings of those concepts into empirical operations. 

In this paper, we discuss our previous metamodel transformation approach to take into account comparative mapping support. We define two levels of comparative mapping conceptual mapping and concrete mapping. Conceptual mapping shows the relations between different conceptual models or metamodels. Concrete mapping shows the relations between models. Then we introduce four comparative mapping types to express the relations between model elements. Finally, an illustrative case study from the OPENCOSS project is used to demonstrate our approach. 

The examples we have described all succeed more or less in their goals but they only work to a certain extent. We are proposing an interface that can build on examples such as these in order to explore how conceptual maps can be used as searching devices rather than simply for representation and visualization. Our interface provides communication between two conceptual maps in order to allow a user both to conceptualize related data and to create a more meaningful and effective search. 

The conceptualization of this work process ontology is fully consistent with the one underljdng C3. In particular, the elements and connectors of C3 map to classes and relations in the Process Ontology. This conceptual integration of both formalisms allows a seamless transition from a semi-formal to a formal representation. While the former is ideally suited to empirically elucidate an actual work process, the latter targets a tool-based interpretation and processing. 

---