An extensible argument-based ontology matching negotiation approach

Computational systems operating in open, dynamic and decentralized environments are required to share data with previously unknown computational systems. Due to this ill specification and emergent operation the systems are required to share the data's respective schemas and semantics so that the systems can correctly manipulate, understand and reason upon the shared data. The schemas and semantics are typically provided by ontologies using specific semantics provided by the ontology language. Because computational systems adopt different ontologies to describe their domain of discourse, a consistent and compatible communication relies on the ability to reconcile (in run-time) the vocabulary used in their ontologies. Since each computational system might have its own perspective about what are the best correspondences between the adopted ontologies, conflicts can arise. To address such conflicts, computational systems may engage in any kind of negotiation process that is able to lead them to a common and acceptable agreement.This paper proposes an argumentation-based approach where the computational entities describe their own arguments according to a commonly agreed argumentation meta-model. In order to support autonomy and conceptual differences, the community argumentation model can be individually extended yet maintaining computational effectiveness. Based on the formal specification, a software development framework is proposed. A novel argument-based ontology matching negotiation approach is proposed.An explicit, formal, shared and extensible argumentation model is adopted.Experiments demonstrate the usefulness and pertinence of the approach.Easy to adapt and evolve the approach to support different scenarios' requirements.A Software Development Framework for the adoption of the proposed approach.

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

[2]  J. Munkres.  ALGORITHMS FOR THE ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSIORTATION tROBLEMS* , 1957 .

[3]  Nigel Shadbolt,et al.  CROSI: Capturing Representing and Operationalising Semantic Integration , 2005 .

[4]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon.  Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks , 2003, J. Log. Comput..

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

[6]  Yuzhong Qu,et al.  GMO: A Graph Matching for Ontologies , 2005, Integrating Ontologies.

[7]  C. Cayrol,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments in Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks , 2005, ECSQARU.

[8]  Thomas R. Gruber,et al.  A translation approach to portable ontology specifications , 1993, Knowl. Acquis..

[9]  Yuzhong Qu,et al.  Constructing virtual documents for ontology matching , 2006, WWW '06.

[10]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Logic Programming , 1993, IJCAI.

[11]  L. Burton.  Intention , 2011 .

[12]  Bart Verheij,et al.  On the existence and multiplicity of extensions in dialectical argumentation , 2002, NMR.

[13]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  Gradual Valuation for Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks , 2005, ECSQARU.

[14]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Argumentation Theory: A Very Short Introduction , 2009, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence.

[15]  Stefanos D. Kollias,et al.  A String Metric for Ontology Alignment , 2005, SEMWEB.

[16]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Argumentation over ontology correspondences in MAS , 2007, AAMAS '07.

[17]  Nuno Silva,et al.  An Approach to Ontology Mapping Negotiation , 2005, Integrating Ontologies.

[18]  Zohra Bellahsene,et al.  A Flexible System for Ontology Matching , 2011, CAiSE Forum.

[19]  Yuzhong Qu,et al.  FalconAO: Aligning Ontologies with Falcon , 2005, Integrating Ontologies.

[20]  Pietro Baroni,et al.  Semantics of Abstract Argument Systems , 2009, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence.

[21]  A. Bernstein,et al.  SimPack: A Generic Java Library for Similarity Measures in Ontologies , 2005 .

[22]  Barbara Messing,et al.  An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems , 2002, Künstliche Intell..

[23]  G. Aghila,et al.  A Comparative Analysis of Ontology and Schema Matching Systems , 2011 .

[24]  L. Amgoud,et al.  On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks , 2008 .

[25]  Nuno Silva,et al.  Iterative, Incremental and Evolving EAF-Based Negotiation Process , 2013, Complex Automated Negotiations.

[26]  L. S. Shapley,et al.  College Admissions and the Stability of Marriage , 2013, Am. Math. Mon..

[27]  Nuno Silva,et al.  GOALS - A Test-Bed for Ontology Matching , 2009, KEOD.

[28]  Henry Prakken,et al.  An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments , 2010, Argument Comput..

[29]  Steffen Staab,et al.  What Is an Ontology? , 2009, Handbook on Ontologies.

[30]  Valentina A. M. Tamma,et al.  Deciding Agent Orientation on Ontology Mappings , 2010, International Semantic Web Conference.

[31]  Nuno Silva,et al.  Generating Arguments for Ontology Matching , 2011, 2011 22nd International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications.

[32]  Paulo Alexandre Fangueiro Oliveira Maio.  An extensible argumentation model for ontology matching negotiation , 2015 .

[33]  Dimitris Papadias,et al.  Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system , 2001, Inf. Syst..

[34]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  Coalitions of arguments: A tool for handling bipolar argumentation frameworks , 2010, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

[35]  Jérôme Euzenat,et al.  A Survey of Schema-Based Matching Approaches , 2005, J. Data Semant..

[36]  Nuno Silva,et al.  A Three-Layer Argumentation Framework , 2011, TAFA.

[37]  Guilin Qi,et al.  Combination of Similarity Measures in Ontology Matching Using the OWA Operator , 2011, Recent Developments in the Ordered Weighted Averaging Operators.

[38]  Michael E. Bratman,et al.  Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason , 1991 .

[39]  Vladimir I. Levenshtein,et al.  Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals , 1965 .