Advertisement

Ontology Merging as Social Choice

  • Daniele Porello
  • Ulle Endriss
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6814)

Abstract

The problem of merging several ontologies has important applications in the Semantic Web, medical ontology engineering, and other domains where information from several distinct sources needs to be integrated in a coherent manner. We propose to treat ontology merging as a problem of social choice, i.e., as a problem of aggregating the input of a set of individuals into an adequate collective decision, and we show how to apply the methodology of social choice theory in this new domain. We do this for the case of ontologies that are modelled using description logics. Specifically, we formulate a number of desirable properties for ontology merging procedures, we identify the incompatibility of some of these properties, and we define and analyse several concrete procedures.

Keywords

Social Choice Majority Rule Description Logic Social Choice Theory Judgment Aggregation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baader, F., Nutt, W.: Basic description logics. In: The Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dietrich, F., List, C.: Judgment aggregation by quota rules: Majority voting generalized. Journal of Theoretical Politics 19(4), 391–424 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dietrich, F., List, C.: Judgment aggregation with consistency alone. Working paper. London School of Economics (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Endriss, U., Grandi, U., Porello, D.: Complexity of judgment aggregation: Safety of the agenda. In: Proc. AAMAS-2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Flouris, G., Huang, Z., Pan, J.Z., Plexousakis, D., Wache, H.: Inconsistencies, negations and changes in ontologies. In: Proc. AAAI-2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Flouris, G., Manakanatas, D., Kondylakis, H., Plexousakis, D., Antoniou, G.: Ontology change: Classification and survey. Knowledge Engineering Review 23(2), 117–152 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gaertner, W.: A Primer in Social Choice Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Konieczny, S., Lang, J., Marquis, P.: DA2 merging operators. Artificial Intelligence 157(1-2), 49–79 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    List, C., Pettit, P.: Aggregating sets of judgments: An impossibility result. Economics and Philosophy 18(1), 89–110 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    List, C., Puppe, C.: Judgment aggregation: A survey. In: Handbook of Rational and Social Choice. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    May, K.O.: A set of independent necessary and sufficient conditions for simple majority decision. Econometrica 20(4), 680–684 (1952)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nehring, K., Puppe, C.: The structure of strategy-proof social choice. Part I: General characterization and possibility results on median spaces. Journal of Economic Theory 135(1), 269–305 (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Noy, N.F., Musen, M.A.: Algorithm and tool for automated ontology merging and alignment. In: Proc. AAAI-2000 (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ribeiro, M.M., Wassermann, R.: Base revision for ontology debugging. Journal of Logic and Computation 19(5), 721–743 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniele Porello
    • 1
  • Ulle Endriss
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Logic, Language and Computation (ILLC)University of AmsterdamNetherlands

Personalised recommendations