Cited By
View all- Ivanova T(2018)Ontology AlignmentInternational Journal of Knowledge and Systems Science10.4018/jkss.20101001021:4(22-40)Online publication date: 17-Dec-2018
An Argumentation Framework Based on Strength for Ontology Mapping
February 2009
Pages 57 - 71
Abstract
In the field of ontology mapping, using argumentation to combine different mapping approaches is an innovative research area. We had extended the Value-based Argumentation Framework (VAF) in order to represent arguments with <em>confidence degrees</em>, according to the similarity degree between the terms being mapped. The mappings are computed by agents using different mapping approaches. Based on their preferences and confidences, the agents compute their preferred mapping sets. The arguments in such preferred sets are viewed as the set of globally acceptable arguments. In previous work we had used discrete classes to represent the <em>confidence degrees</em> (certainty and uncertainty). In this paper, we propose to use continuous values from the interval [0,1]. Here, <em>confidence</em> is treated as <em>strength</em> . Using a threshold for the <em>strength</em> we can reduce the set of mappings and adjust the values of precision. We evaluate the use of <em>strength</em> against the previous confidence as discrete classes. The results are promising, especially what concerns precision.
References
[1]
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: On the acceptability of arguments in preference-based argumentation. In: 14th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI 1998), San Francisco, California, juillet 1998, pp. 1-7. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1998).
[2]
Bailin, S., Truszkowski, W.: Ontology negotiation between intelligent information agents. The Knowledge Engineering Review 17(1), 7-19 (2002).
[3]
Bench-Capon, T.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13, 429-448 (2003).
[4]
van Diggelen, J., Beun, R., Dignum, F., van Eijk, R., Meyer, J.C.: Anemone: An effective minimal ontology negotiation environment. In: Proceedings of the Fiftheen International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 899-906 (2006).
[5]
Do, H.H., Rahm, E.: Coma - a system for flexible combination of schema matching approaches. In: Proceedings of the 28th Conference on Very Large Databases, pp. 610-621 (2002).
[6]
Dung, P.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321-358 (1995).
[7]
Euzenat, J., Shvaiko, P.: Ontology matching. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).
[8]
Gangemi, A., Pisanelli, D.M., Steve, G.: A formal ontology framework to represent norm dynamics. In: Congreso Internacional de Culturas y Sistemas Jurídicos Comparados (2005).
[9]
Giunchiglia, F., Shvaiko, P., Yatskevich, M.: S-match: an algorithm and an implementation of semantic matching. In: Bussler, C.J., Davies, J., Fensel, D., Studer, R. (eds.) ESWS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3053, pp. 61-75. Springer, Heidelberg (2004).
[10]
Gruber, T.R.: Towards Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing. In: Guarino, N., Poli, R. (eds.) Formal Ontology in Conceptual Analysis and Knowledge Representation, Deventer, The Netherlands. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1993).
[11]
Hakimpour, F., Geppert, A.: Resolving semantic heterogeneity in schema integration: an ontology approach. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Ontology in Informational Systems, pp. 297-308 (2001).
[12]
Laera, L., Blacoe, I., Tamma, V., Payne, T., Euzenat, J., Bench-Capon, T.: Argumentation over ontology correspondences in mas. In: Durfee, M., Yokoo, E.H. (eds.) Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (2007).
[13]
Laera, L., Tamma, V., Euzenat, J., Bench-Capon, T., Payne, T.R.: Reaching agreement over ontology alignments. In: Cruz, I., Decker, S., Allemang, D., Preist, C., Schwabe, D., Mika, P., Uschold, M., Aroyo, L.M. (eds.) ISWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4273, pp. 371-384. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).
[14]
Levenshtein, I.: Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions an reversals. In: Cybernetics and Control Theory (1966).
[15]
Levenshtein, V.: Binary Codes Capable of Correcting Deletions and Insertions and Reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady 10(8), 707-710 (1966).
[16]
Madhavan, J., Bernstein, P., Rahm, E.: Generic schema matching with cupid. In: Proceedings of the Very Large Data Bases Conference, pp. 49-58 (2001).
[17]
Maedche, A., Motik, B., Silva, N., Volz, R.: Mafra - a mapping framework for distributed ontologies. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Benjamins, V.R. (eds.) EKAW 2002. LNCS, vol. 2473, pp. 235-250. Springer, Heidelberg (2002).
[18]
Maedche, A., Staab, S.: Measuring similarity between ontologies. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Knowledge Acquisition and Management, pp. 251-263 (2002).
[19]
Rahm, E., Bernstein, P.A.: A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. VLDB 10, 334-350 (2001).
[20]
Shvaiko, P., Euzenat, J.: A survey of schema-based matching approaches. Technical report, Informatica e Telecomunicazioni, University of Trento (2004).
[21]
Silva, N., Maio, P., Rocha, J.: An approach to ontology mapping negotiation. In: Proceedings of the K-CAP Workshop on Integrating Ontologies (2005).
[22]
Stoilos, G., Stamou, G., Kollias, S.: A string metric for ontology alignment. In: Gil, Y., Motta, E., Benjamins, V.R., Musen, M.A. (eds.) ISWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3729, pp. 624-637. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).
[23]
Tamma, V., Wooldridge, M., Blacoe, I., Dickinson, I.: An ontology based approach to automated negotiation. In: Proceedings of the IV Workshop on Agent Mediated Electronic Commerce, pp. 219-237 (2002).
[24]
Trojahn, C., Quaresma, P., Vieira, R.: A cooperative approach for composite ontology mapping. LNCS Journal of Data Semantic (to appear, 2007).
[25]
Trojahn, C., Quaresma, P., Vieira, R.: An extended value-based argumentation framework for ontology mapping with confidence degrees. In: Fourth International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMAS 2007). Workshop at International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS) (2007).
Recommendations
An argumentation framework based on confidence degrees to combine ontology mapping approaches
Ontology mapping has a key importance for applications such as information retrieval, database integration, and agent-communication. This paper presents an Argumentation Framework, with confidence degrees associated to the arguments, to combine ontology ...
An extended value-based argumentation framework for ontology mapping with confidence degrees
ArgMAS'07: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Argumentation in multi-agent systemsHeuristics to combine different approaches for ontology mapping have been proposed in the literature. This paper proposes to use abstract argumentation frameworks to combine such approaches. We extend the Value-based Argumentation Framework (VAF)[2], in ...
Argument Strength in Probabilistic Argumentation Using Confirmation Theory
Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with UncertaintyAbstractIt is common for people to remark that a particular argument is a strong (or weak) argument. Having a handle on the relative strengths of arguments can help in deciding on which arguments to consider, and on which to present to others in a ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Berlin, Heidelberg
Publication History
Published: 04 February 2009
Qualifiers
- Chapter
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- View Citations1Total Citations
- 0Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)0
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 05 Jan 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View all- Ivanova T(2018)Ontology AlignmentInternational Journal of Knowledge and Systems Science10.4018/jkss.20101001021:4(22-40)Online publication date: 17-Dec-2018