Abstract
Resolving the semantic heterogeneity problem is crucial to allow interoperability between ontology-based systems. Ontology matching based on argumentation is an innovative research area that aims at solving this issue, where agents encapsulate different matching techniques and the distinct results are shared, compared, chosen and agreed. In this paper, we compare three argumentation frameworks, which consider different notions of acceptability: based on values and preferences between audiences promoting these values, based on the confidence level of the arguments, and based on voting on the arguments. We evaluate these frameworks using realistic ontologies from an established evaluation test case. The best matcher varies depending on specific characteristics of each set, while considering voting on arguments the results are similar to the best matchers for all cases.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bailin, S., Truszkowski, W.: Ontology negotiation between intelligent information agents. The Knowledge Engineering Review 17(1), 7–19 (2002)
Bench-Capon, T.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13, 429–448 (2003)
Curino, C., Orsi, G., Tanca, L.: X-som results for oaei 2007. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Ontology Matching Workshop, Busan, Korea, pp. 276–285 (2007)
van Diggelen, J., Beun, R., Dignum, F., van Eijk, R., Meyer, J.C.: Anemone: An effective minimal ontology negotiation environment. In: Proceedings of the V International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 899–906 (2006)
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)
Euzenat, J., Mochol, M., Shvaiko, P., Stuckenschmidt, H., Sváb, O., Svátek, V., van Hage, W.R., Yatskevich, M.: Results of the ontology alignment evaluation initiative 2006. In: Shvaiko, P., Euzenat, J., Noy, N.F., Stuckenschmidt, H., Benjamins, V.R., Uschold, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Ontology Matching. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 225 (2006), CEUR-WS.org
Euzenat, J., Shvaiko, P.: Ontology Matching. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Euzenat, J., Valtchev, P.: Similarity-based ontology alignment in OWL-Lite. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 16, pp. 333–337 (2004)
Hu, W., Qu, Y.: Falcon–AO: A practical ontology matching system. Journal of Web Semantics 6(3), 237–239 (2008)
Isaac, A., Trojahn, C., Wang, S., Quaresma, P.: Using quantitative aspects of alignment generation for argumentation on mappings. In: Workshop on Ontology Matching (OM 2008) at 7th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2008 (2008) (to appear)
Isaac, A., van der Meij, L., Schlobach, S., Wang, S.: An empirical study of instance-based ontology matching. In: Aberer, K., Choi, K.-S., Noy, N., Allemang, D., Lee, K.-I., Nixon, L.J.B., Golbeck, J., Mika, P., Maynard, D., Mizoguchi, R., Schreiber, G., Cudré-Mauroux, P. (eds.) ASWC 2007 and ISWC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4825, pp. 253–266. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Jean-Mary, Y., Kabuka, M.: Asmov: Ontology alignment with semantic validation. In: Joint SWDB-ODBIS Workshop on Semantics, Ontologies, Databases, Vienna, Austria, pp. 15–20 (2007)
Kiu, C.-C., Lee, C.-S.: Ontodna: Ontology alignment results for oaei 2007. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Ontology Matching Workshop, Busan, Korea, pp. 196–204 (2007)
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)
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)
Maedche, A., Motik, B., Silva, N., Volz, R.: Mafra - a mapping framework for distributed ontologies. In: 13th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, pp. 235–250 (2002)
Mao, M., Peng, Y.: The prior+: Results for oaei campaign 2007. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Ontology Matching Workshop, Busan, Korea, pp. 219–226 (2007)
Nagy, M., Vargas-Vera, M., Motta, E.: DSSim – managing uncertainty on the semantic web. In: 2nd International Workshop on Ontology Matching, Busan, Korea (2007)
Silva, N., Maio, P., Rocha, J.: An approach to ontology mapping negotiation. In: Proceedings of the K-CAP Workshop on Integrating Ontologies (2005)
Spiliopoulos, V., Valarakos, A., Vouros, G., Karkaletsis, V.: Sema: Results for the ontology alignment contest oaei 2007. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Ontology Matching Workshop, Busan, Korea, pp. 244–254 (2007)
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)
Tan, H., Lambrix, P.: Sambo results for the ontology alignment evaluation initiative 2007. In: Proceedings of the Second Ontology Matching Workshop, Busan, Korea, pp. 236–243 (2007)
Tang, J., Liang, B., Li, J.-Z., Wang, K.: Risk minimization based ontology mapping. In: Chi, C.-H., Lam, K.-Y. (eds.) AWCC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3309, pp. 469–480. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Trojahn, C., Quaresma, P., Vieira, R.: An extended value-based argumentation framework for ontology mapping with confidence degrees. In: Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Reed, C. (eds.) ArgMAS 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4946, pp. 132–144. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Trojahn, C., Quaresma, P., Vieira, R.: An argumentation framework based on strength for ontology mapping. In: Workshop of Argumentation, International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2008)
Trojahn, C., Quaresma, P., Vieira, R., Moraes, M.: A cooperative approach for composite ontology mapping. In: Spaccapietra, S. (ed.) Journal on Data Semantics X. LNCS, vol. 4900, pp. 237–263. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Wang, P., Xu, B.: Lily: The results for the ontology alignment contest oaei 2007. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Ontology Matching Workshop, Busan, Korea, pp. 179–185 (2007)
Zargayouna, H., Safar, B., Reynaud, C.: Taxomap in the oaei 2007 alignment contest. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Ontology Matching Workshop, Busan, Korea, pp. 268–275 (2007)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Trojahn, C., Quaresma, P., Vieira, R., Isaac, A. (2010). Comparing Argumentation Frameworks for Composite Ontology Matching. In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Maudet, N. (eds) Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. ArgMAS 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6057. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12805-9_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12805-9_18
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-12804-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-12805-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)