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 confidence degrees, 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 confidence degrees (certainty and uncertainty). In this paper, we propose to use continuous values from the interval [0,1]. Here, confidence is treated as strength. Using a threshold for the strength we can reduce the set of mappings and adjust the values of precision. We evaluate the use of strength against the previous confidence as discrete classes. The results are promising, especially what concerns precision.
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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., Shvaiko, P.: Ontology matching. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Levenshtein, I.: Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions an reversals. In: Cybernetics and Control Theory (1966)
Levenshtein, V.: Binary Codes Capable of Correcting Deletions and Insertions and Reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady 10(8), 707–710 (1966)
Madhavan, J., Bernstein, P., Rahm, E.: Generic schema matching with cupid. In: Proceedings of the Very Large Data Bases Conference, pp. 49–58 (2001)
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)
Maedche, A., Staab, S.: Measuring similarity between ontologies. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Knowledge Acquisition and Management, pp. 251–263 (2002)
Rahm, E., Bernstein, P.A.: A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. VLDB 10, 334–350 (2001)
Shvaiko, P., Euzenat, J.: A survey of schema-based matching approaches. Technical report, Informatica e Telecomunicazioni, University of Trento (2004)
Silva, N., Maio, P., Rocha, J.: An approach to ontology mapping negotiation. In: Proceedings of the K-CAP Workshop on Integrating Ontologies (2005)
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)
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)
Trojahn, C., Quaresma, P., Vieira, R.: A cooperative approach for composite ontology mapping. LNCS Journal of Data Semantic (to appear, 2007)
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)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Trojahn, C., Quaresma, P., Vieira, R. (2009). An Argumentation Framework Based on Strength for Ontology Mapping. In: Rahwan, I., Moraitis, P. (eds) Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. ArgMAS 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 5384. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00207-6_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00207-6_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-00206-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-00207-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)