Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence

ICAART 2018: Agents and Artificial Intelligence pp 343–360Cite as

Inherited Properties of \(\mathcal {FL}_0\) Concept Similarity Measure Under Preference Profile

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 11352))

Abstract

Measuring concept similarity in ontologies is central to the functioning of many techniques such as ontology matching, ontology learning, and many related applications in the bio-medical domain. Generally, it can be seen as a generalization of concept equivalence problem in Description Logics. That is, any two concepts are equivalent if and only if their similarity degree is one. The recently introduced measures can be used to identify such kind of similarity degree between \(\mathcal {FL}_0\) concept descriptions not only w.r.t. the objective factors (e.g. the structure of concept descriptions) but also w.r.t. the subjective factors called preference profile (e.g. the agent’s preferences). In this paper, we provide proofs of theorems about their inherited properties including their relationship to the classical reasoning problem of concept equivalence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In this work, we assume that concept names are fully expanded and the TBox can be omitted.

  2. 2.

    Obvious abbreviations are used for succinctness.

  3. 3.

    See Definition 5 for the meaning of \(\preceq \).

  4. 4.

    We recall that \(\mathcal {ELH}\) offers the constructors conjunction \((\sqcap )\), full existential quantification , and the top concept \((\top )\); also, the TBox can contain (possibly primitive) concept definitions and role hierarchy axioms.

References

  1. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New York (2010)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Ashburner, M., et al.: Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat. Genet. 25(1), 25–29 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Euzenat, J., Valtchev, P.: Similarity-based ontology alignment in OWL-lite. In: de Mántaras, R.L., Saitta, L. (eds.) Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2004), pp. 333–337. IOS Press (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Raha, S., Hossain, A., Ghosh, S.: Similarity based approximate reasoning: fuzzy control. J. Appl. Log. 6(1), 47–71 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Sessa, M.I.: Approximate reasoning by similarity-based SLD resolution. Theor. Comput. Sci. 275(1–2), 389–426 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Racharak, T., Tojo, S., Hung, N.D., Boonkwan, P.: Argument-based logic programming for analogical reasoning. In: Kurahashi, S., Ohta, Y., Arai, S., Satoh, K., Bekki, D. (eds.) JSAI-isAI 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10247, pp. 253–269. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61572-1_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Racharak, T., Tojo, S., Hung, N.D., Boonkwan, P.: Combining answer set programming with description logics for analogical reasoning under an agent’s preferences. In: Benferhat, S., Tabia, K., Ali, M. (eds.) IEA/AIE 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10351, pp. 306–316. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60045-1_33

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Tversky, A.: Features of similarity. Psychol. Rev. 84(4), 327–352 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lehmann, K., Turhan, A.-Y.: A Framework for semantic-based similarity measures for \(\cal{ELH}\)-concepts. In: del Cerro, L.F., Herzig, A., Mengin, J. (eds.) JELIA 2012. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7519, pp. 307–319. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33353-8_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Tongphu, S., Suntisrivaraporn, B.: Algorithms for measuring similarity between \({\cal{ELH}}\) concept descriptions: a case study on SNOMED CT. J. Comput. Inform. 36, 733–764 (2017)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Racharak, T., Suntisrivaraporn, B., Tojo, S.: \({\sf sim}^\pi \): a concept similarity measure under an agent’s preferences in description logic \({\cal{ELH}}\). In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence, pp. 480–487 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Racharak, T., Suntisrivaraporn, B., Tojo, S.: Personalizing a concept similarity measure in the description logic \({\cal{ELH}}\) with preference profile. J. Comput. Inform. 37, 581–613 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Racharak, T., Tojo, S.: Concept similarity under the agent’s preferences for the description logic \(\cal{FL}_0\) with unfoldable TBox. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence, pp. 201–210 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Baader, F., Narendran, P.: Unification of concept terms in description logics. J. Symb. Comput. 31(3), 277–305 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Brachman, R.J., Levesque, H.J.: The tractability of subsumption in frame-based description languages. In: AAAI, vol. 84, pp. 34–37 (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Racharak, T., Suntisrivaraporn, B., Tojo, S.: Identifying an agent’s preferences toward similarity measures in description logics. In: Qi, G., Kozaki, K., Pan, J.Z., Yu, S. (eds.) JIST 2015. LNCS, vol. 9544, pp. 201–208. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31676-5_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Rada, R., Mili, H., Bicknell, E., Blettner, M.: Development and application of a metric on semantic nets. IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. 19(1), 17–30 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Caviedes, J.E., Cimino, J.J.: Towards the development of a conceptual distance metric for the UMLS. J. Biomed. Inform. 37(2), 77–85 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ge, J., Qiu, Y.: Concept similarity matching based on semantic distance. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Semantics, Knowledge and Grid, pp. 380–383, December 2008

    Google Scholar 

  20. Resnik, P.: Using information content to evaluate semantic similarity in a taxonomy. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 1995, vol. 1, pp. 448–453. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Pedersen, T., Pakhomov, S.V., Patwardhan, S., Chute, C.G.: Measures of semantic similarity and relatedness in the biomedical domain. J. Biomed. Inform. 40(3), 288–299 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Patwardhan, S.: Using WordNet-based context vectors to estimate the semantic relatedness of concepts. In: Proceedings of the EACL 2006 Workshop Making Sense of Sense-bringing Computational Linguistics and Psycholinguistics Together, vol. 1501, pp. 1–8 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Schütze, H.: Automatic word sense discrimination. Comput. Linguist. 24(1), 97–123 (1998)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Lai, K.H., Topaz, M., Goss, F.R., Zhou, L.: Automated misspelling detection and correction in clinical free-text records. J. Biomed. Inform. 55, 188–195 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gabrys, R., Yaakobi, E., Milenkovic, O.: Codes in the Damerau distance for DNA storage. In: 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), pp. 2644–2648. IEEE (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Bille, P.: A survey on tree edit distance and related problems. Theor. Comput. Sci. 337(1–3), 217–239 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Jaccard, P.: Étude comparative de la distribution florale dans une portion des alpeset des jura. Bull. de la Societe Vaudoise des Sci. Nat. 37, 547–579 (1901)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Suntisrivaraporn, B.: A similarity measure for the description logic EL with unfoldable terminologies, pp. 408–413 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Suntisrivaraporn, B., Tongphu, S.: A structural subsumption based similarity measure for the description logic \(\cal{ALEH}\). In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence, ICAART 2016, pp. 204–212. SCITEPRESS - Science and Technology Publications, Lda (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Racharak, T., Suntisrivaraporn, B.: Similarity measures for \(\cal{FL}_0\) concept descriptions from an automata-theoretic point of view. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of Information and Communication Technology for Embedded Systems (IC-ICTES), pp. 1–6, March 2015

    Google Scholar 

  31. D’Amato, C., Fanizzi, N., Esposito, F.: A semantic similarity measure for expressive description logics. CoRR abs/0911.5043 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  32. d’Amato, C., Staab, S., Fanizzi, N.: On the influence of description logics ontologies on conceptual similarity. In: Gangemi, A., Euzenat, J. (eds.) EKAW 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5268, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87696-0_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Alsubait, T., Parsia, B., Sattler, U.: Measuring conceptual similarity in ontologies: how bad is a cheap measure? In: Informal Proceedings of the 27th International Workshop on Description Logics, Vienna, Austria, 17–20 July 2014, pp. 365–377 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Bernstein, A., Kaufmann, E., Bürki, C., Klein, M.: How similar is it? Towards personalized similarity measures in ontologies. In: Ferstl, O.K., Sinz, E.J., Eckert, S., Isselhorst, T. (eds.) Wirtschaftsinformatik 2005: eEconomy, eGovernment, eSociety, pp. 1347–1366. Physica-Verlag HD, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-7908-1624-8_71

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS kaken no. 17H02258) and is part of the JAIST-NECTEC-SIIT dual doctoral degree program. The authors would also like to thank the editors for the comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information, Computer, and Communication Technology, Sirindhorn International Institute of Technology, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani, Thailand

    Teeradaj Racharak

  2. School of Information Science, Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Ishikawa, Japan

    Teeradaj Racharak & Satoshi Tojo

Authors
  1. Teeradaj Racharak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Satoshi Tojo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Teeradaj Racharak .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Jaap van den Herik

  2. University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

    Ana Paula Rocha

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Racharak, T., Tojo, S. (2019). Inherited Properties of \(\mathcal {FL}_0\) Concept Similarity Measure Under Preference Profile. In: van den Herik, J., Rocha, A. (eds) Agents and Artificial Intelligence. ICAART 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11352. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05453-3_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05453-3_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05452-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05453-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation