Feedback Matching Framework for Semantic Interoperability of Product Data

There is a need to promote drastically increased levels of interoperability of product data across a broad spectrum of stakeholders, while ensuring that the semantics of product knowledge are preserved, and when necessary, translated. In order to achieve this, multiple methods have been proposed to determine semantic maps across concepts from different representations. Previous research has focused on developing different individual matching methods, i.e., ones that compute mapping based on a single matching measure. These efforts assume that some weighted combination can be used to obtain the overall maps. We analyze the problem of combination of multiple individual methods to determine requirements specific to product development and propose a solution approach called FEedback Matching Framework with Implicit Training (FEMFIT). FEMFIT provides the ability to combine the different matching approaches using ranking Support Vector Machine (ranking SVM). The method accounts for nonlinear relations between the individual matchers. It overcomes the need to explicitly train the algorithm before it is used, and further reduces the decision-making load on the domain expert by implicitly capturing the expert's decisions without requiring him to input real numbers on similarity. We apply FEMFIT to a subset of product constraints across a commercial system and the ISO standard. We observe that FEMIT demonstrates better accuracy (average correctness of the results) and stability (deviation from the average) in comparison with other existing combination methods commonly assumed to be valid in this domain.

[1]  Michael J. Fischer,et al.  The String-to-String Correction Problem , 1974, JACM.

[2]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching , 2001, The VLDB Journal.

[3]  Sudarsan Rachuri,et al.  Product Information Exchange: Practices and Standards , 2005, J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng..

[4]  Lin Zhang,et al.  Ontology based semantic mapping architecture , 2005, 2005 International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics.

[5]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  COMA - A System for Flexible Combination of Schema Matching Approaches , 2002, VLDB.

[6]  Sheila A. Martin,et al.  Interoperability Cost Analysis of the U.S. Automotive Supply Chain , 1999 .

[7]  Bernhard Schölkopf,et al.  A tutorial on support vector regression , 2004, Stat. Comput..

[8]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Optimizing search engines using clickthrough data , 2002, KDD.

[9]  Hyo-Won Suh,et al.  Semantic Mapping Based on Ontology and a Bayesian Network and Its Application to CAD and PDM Integration , 2006 .

[10]  Natalya F. Noy,et al.  Semantic integration: a survey of ontology-based approaches , 2004, SGMD.

[11]  Farhad Ameri,et al.  Product Lifecycle Management: Closing the Knowledge Loops , 2005 .

[12]  Pedro M. Domingos,et al.  Reconciling schemas of disparate data sources: a machine-learning approach , 2001, SIGMOD '01.

[13]  Ram D. Sriram,et al.  Ontology-based exchange of product data semantics , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering.

[14]  Chao Wang,et al.  Integration of Ontology Data through Learning Instance Matching , 2006, 2006 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence (WI 2006 Main Conference Proceedings)(WI'06).

[15]  Lalit Patil Interoperability of formal semantics of production data across product development systems. , 2005 .

[16]  Deborah L. McGuinness,et al.  OWL Web ontology language overview , 2004 .

[17]  Bernhard E. Boser,et al.  A training algorithm for optimal margin classifiers , 1992, COLT '92.

[18]  J. Euzenat,et al.  Ontology Matching , 2007, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[19]  Allison Barnard Feeney,et al.  Concepts for Automating Systems Integration , 2003 .

[20]  Aidong Zhang,et al.  SemQuery: Semantic Clustering and Querying on Heterogeneous Features for Visual Data , 2002, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..