Advertisement

Identifying an Agent’s Preferences Toward Similarity Measures in Description Logics

  • Teeradaj RacharakEmail author
  • Boontawee Suntisrivaraporn
  • Satoshi Tojo
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9544)

Abstract

In Description Logics (DLs), concept similarity measures (CSMs) aim at identifying a degree of commonality between two given concepts and are often regarded as a generalization of the classical reasoning problem of equivalence. That is, any two concepts are equivalent if their similarity degree is one, and vice versa. When two concepts are not quite equivalent but similar, nevertheless, a problem may arise as to which aspects of commonality should play more important role than others. This work presents the so-called preference profile, which is design guidelines for an agent’s preferences and points out to our preliminary developing stage of \(\mathsf {sim}^\pi \) [1], in which an agent’s preferences can influence the calculation of CSM in DL \(\mathcal {ELH}\).

Keywords

Preference profile Concept similarity measures Non-standard reasoning services Description logics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research is partially supported by Thammasart University Research Fund under the TU Research Scholar, Contract No. TOR POR 1/13/2558; the Center of Excellence in Intelligent Informatics, Speech and Language Technology, and Service Innovation (CILS), Thammasat University; and the JAIST-NECTEC-SIIT dual doctoral degree program.

References

  1. 1.
    Racharak, T., Suntisrivaraporn, B., Tojo, S.: Are Frog and TreeLizard similar? guidelines for concept similarity measures under an agent’s preferences in dls. Technical-Report BS2015-01, School of Information, Computer and Communication Technology, Sirinthorn International Institute of Technology, Thammasart University, Sirinthorn International Institute of Technology, Thailand (2015). http://ict.siit.tu.ac.th/~sun/dw/doku.php?id=reports
  2. 2.
    Son, T.C., Pontelli, E.: Planning with preferences using logic programming. In: Lifschitz, V., Niemelä, I. (eds.) LPNMR 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2923, pp. 247–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P. (eds.): The Construction of Preference. Cambridge University Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scherer, K.: What are emotions? and how can they be measured? Soc. Sci. Inf. 44(4), 693–727 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Suntisrivaraporn, B.: A similarity measure for the description logic el with unfoldable terminologies. In: INCoS, pp. 408–413 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tongphu, S., Suntisrivaraporn, B.: Algorithms for measuring similarity between elh concept descriptions: a case study on snomed ct. J. Comput. Inf. (2015). Accessed 7 May 2015 (to appear)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Racharak, T., Suntisrivaraporn, B.: Similarity measures for FL0 concept descriptions from an automata-theoretic point of view. In: Proceedings of The 6th Annual International Conference on Information and Communication Technology for Embedded Systems (ICICTES 2015) (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tongphu, S., Suntisrivaraporn, B.: A non-standard instance checking for the description logic ELH. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development (KEOD 2014) (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tongphu, S., Suntisrivaraporn, B.: On desirable properties of the structural subsumption-based similarity measure. In: Supnithi, T., Yamaguchi, T., Pan, J.Z., Wuwongse, V., Buranarach, M. (eds.) Semantic Technology. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), pp. 19–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lehmann, K., Turhan, A.-Y.: A Framework for Semantic-Based Similarity Measures for elh-concepts. In: Cerro, L.F., Herzig, A., Mengin, J. (eds.) JELIA 2012. LNCS, vol. 7519, pp. 307–319. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Teeradaj Racharak
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Boontawee Suntisrivaraporn
    • 1
  • Satoshi Tojo
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Information, Computer and Communication Technology, Sirindhorn International Institute of TechnologyThammasat UniversityPathum ThaniThailand
  2. 2.School of Information ScienceJapan Advanced Institute of Science and TechnologyIshikawaJapan

Personalised recommendations