Alignment incoherence in ontology matching

Ontology matching is the process of generating alignments between ontologies. An alignment is a set of correspondences. Each correspondence links concepts and properties from one ontology to concepts and properties from another ontology. Obviously, alignments are the key component to enable integration of knowledge bases described by different ontologies. For several reasons, alignments contain often erroneous correspondences. Some of these errors can result in logical conflicts with other correspondences. In such a case the alignment is referred to as an incoherent alignment. The relevance of alignment incoherence and strategies to resolve alignment incoherence are in the center of this thesis. After an introduction to syntax and semantics of ontologies and alignments, the importance of alignment coherence is discussed from different perspectives. On the one hand, it is argued that alignment incoherence always coincides with the incorrectness of correspondences. On the other hand, it is demonstrated that the use of incoherent alignments results in severe problems for different types of applications. The main part of this thesis is concerned with techniques for resolving alignment incoherence, i.e., how to find a coherent subset of an incoherent alignment that has to be preferred over other coherent subsets. The underlying theory is the theory of diagnosis. In particular, two specific types of diagnoses, referred to as local optimal and global optimal diagnosis, are proposed. Computing a diagnosis is for two reasons a challenge. First, it is required to use different types of reasoning techniques to determine that an alignment is incoherent and to find subsets (conflict sets) that cause the incoherence. Second, given a set of conflict sets it is a hard problem to compute a global optimal diagnosis. In this thesis several algorithms are suggested to solve these problems in an efficient way. In the last part of this thesis, the previously developed algorithms are applied to the scenarios of - evaluating alignments by computing their degree of incoherence; - repairing incoherent alignments by computing different types of diagnoses; - selecting a coherent alignment from a rich set of matching hypotheses; - supporting the manual revision of an incoherent alignment. In the course of discussing the experimental results, it becomes clear that it is possible to create a coherent alignment without negative impact on the alignments quality. Moreover, results show that taking alignment incoherence into account has a positive impact on the precision of the alignment and that the proposed approach can help a human to save effort in the revision process.

[1]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[2]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  Debugging Incoherent Terminologies , 2007, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[3]  Sven Ove Hansson,et al.  A textbook of belief dynamics - theory change and database updating , 1999, Applied logic series.

[4]  Cosmin Stroe,et al.  BLOOMS on AgreementMaker: results for OAEI 2010 , 2010, OM.

[5]  Yarden Katz,et al.  Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner , 2007, J. Web Semant..

[6]  Jérôme David,et al.  The Alignment API 4.0 , 2011, Semantic Web.

[7]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  Web Ontology Language: OWL , 2004, Handbook on Ontologies.

[8]  Werner Nutt,et al.  Basic Description Logics , 2003, Description Logic Handbook.

[9]  Arthur Conan Doyle,et al.  The Sign of Four , 1890 .

[10]  Jérôme Euzenat,et al.  An API for Ontology Alignment , 2004, SEMWEB.

[11]  Song Wang,et al.  Results of NBJLM for OAEI 2010 , 2010, OM.

[12]  W. R. van Hage Evaluating Ontology-Alignment Techniques , 2009 .

[13]  Ming Mao,et al.  An adaptive ontology mapping approach with neural network based constraint satisfaction , 2010, J. Web Semant..

[14]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  Contextualizing ontologies , 2004, J. Web Semant..

[15]  Christopher G. Chute,et al.  Survey of modular ontology techniques and their applications in the biomedical domain , 2009, Integr. Comput. Aided Eng..

[16]  Yuzhong Qu,et al.  Falcon-AO: A practical ontology matching system , 2008, J. Web Semant..

[17]  Sebastian Rudolph,et al.  Reasoning-Supported Interactive Revision of Knowledge Bases , 2011, IJCAI.

[18]  Marc Ehrig,et al.  Relaxed Precision and Recall for Ontology Matching , 2005, Integrating Ontologies.

[19]  Solomon Eyal Shimony,et al.  Markov Network Based Ontology Matching , 2009, IJCAI.

[20]  Volker Haarslev,et al.  Description Logics for the Semantic Web: Racer as a Basis for Building Agent Systems , 2003, Künstliche Intell..

[21]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  Results of the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative 2007 , 2006, OM.

[22]  W. Alston Philosophy of Language , 1964 .

[23]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt Debugging Description Logic Ontologies - A Reality Check , 2008 .

[24]  Philippe Besnard,et al.  Bridging the Gap between Abstract Argumentation Systems and Logic , 2009, SUM.

[25]  Mark A. Musen,et al.  The PROMPT suite: interactive tools for ontology merging and mapping , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[26]  Giorgio Orsi,et al.  Preserving Semantics in Automatically Created Ontology Alignments , 2009, Semantic Web Information Management.

[27]  Raymond Reiter,et al.  A Theory of Diagnosis from First Principles , 1986, Artif. Intell..

[28]  Peter F. Patel-Schneider,et al.  Reducing OWL entailment to description logic satisfiability , 2004, Journal of Web Semantics.

[29]  Cosmin Stroe,et al.  Using AgreementMaker to align ontologies for OAEI 2010 , 2010, OM.

[30]  V. Svátek,et al.  OntoFarm : Towards an Experimental Collection of Parallel Ontologies , 2005 .

[31]  Alexander Borgida,et al.  Aspects of Distributed and Modular Ontology Reasoning , 2005, IJCAI.

[32]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  Ontology Alignment: An annotated Bibliography , 2005, Semantic Interoperability and Integration.

[33]  Jérôme Euzenat,et al.  Ten Challenges for Ontology Matching , 2008, OTM Conferences.

[34]  Baowen Xu,et al.  Lily: Ontology Alignment Results for OAEI 2008 , 2008, OM.

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

[36]  Angela Maduko,et al.  Using AgreementMaker to align Ontologies for OAEI 2009: Overview, Results, and Outlook , 2009, OM.

[37]  Peigang Xu,et al.  Alignment results of SOBOM for OAEI 2010 , 2009, OM.

[38]  Nils J. Nilsson,et al.  A Formal Basis for the Heuristic Determination of Minimum Cost Paths , 1968, IEEE Trans. Syst. Sci. Cybern..

[39]  Johanna Völker,et al.  A Kernel Revision Operator for Terminologies - Algorithms and Evaluation , 2008, International Semantic Web Conference.

[40]  Sean M. Falconer Cognitive support for semi-automatic ontology mapping , 2009 .

[41]  Aditya Kalyanpur,et al.  Debugging and Repair of OWL Ontologies , 2006 .

[42]  G. Frege Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik : eine logisch mathematische Untersuchung über den Begriff der Zahl , 1884 .

[43]  Hugh Glaser,et al.  SPARQL query rewriting for implementing data integration over linked data , 2010, EDBT '10.

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

[45]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  Results of the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative , 2007 .

[46]  Watson Wei Khong Chua,et al.  Eff2Match results for OAEI 2010 , 2010, OM.

[47]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  Improving Ontology Matching Using Meta-level Learning , 2009, ESWC.

[48]  Stefan Schlobach,et al.  Debugging and Semantic Clarification by Pinpointing , 2005, ESWC.

[49]  Sandra Geisler,et al.  Results of GeRoMeSuite for OAEI 2008 , 2008, OM.

[50]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  Analyzing Mapping Extraction Approaches , 2007, OM.

[51]  François Scharffe,et al.  Processing Ontology Alignments with SPARQL , 2008, 2008 International Conference on Complex, Intelligent and Software Intensive Systems.

[52]  Masaki Aono,et al.  Anchor-Flood: Results for OAEI 2009 , 2009, OM.

[53]  Jérôme Euzenat,et al.  Consistency-driven argumentation for alignment agreement , 2010, OM.

[54]  Jeff Z. Pan,et al.  Inconsistencies, Negations and Changes in Ontologies , 2006, AAAI.

[55]  Guilin Qi,et al.  A Conflict-based Operator for Mapping Revision , 2009, Description Logics.

[56]  John William Donaldson,et al.  Philosophy of Language , 1998 .

[57]  Dorit S. Hochbaum,et al.  Approximation Algorithms for NP-Hard Problems , 1996 .

[58]  Olivier Bodenreider,et al.  Of Mice and Men: Aligning Mouse and Human Anatomies , 2005, AMIA.

[59]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  Repairing Ontology Mappings , 2007, AAAI.

[60]  P. Haase An Analysis of Approaches to Resolving Inconsistencies in DL-based Ontologies , 2007 .

[61]  Margaret-Anne D. Storey,et al.  A Cognitive Support Framework for Ontology Mapping , 2007, ISWC/ASWC.

[62]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  Supporting Manual Mapping Revision using Logical Reasoning , 2008, AAAI.

[63]  Huajun Chen,et al.  The Semantic Web , 2011, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[64]  Yannis Kalfoglou,et al.  Ontology mapping: the state of the art , 2003, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[65]  Jos de Bruijn,et al.  A language to specify mappings between ontologies , 2005, SITIS.

[66]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  Improving Automatically Created Mappings Using Logical Reasoning , 2006, Ontology Matching.

[67]  Anuj R. Jaiswal,et al.  OMEN: A Probabilistic Ontology Mapping Tool , 2005, SEMWEB.

[68]  Willem Robert van Hage,et al.  Relevance-based Evaluation of Alignment Approaches: The OAEI 2007 Food Task Revisited , 2008, OM.

[69]  Johanna Völker,et al.  Learning Disjointness for Debugging Mappings between Lightweight Ontologies , 2008, EKAW.

[70]  Renata Vieira,et al.  An argumentation framework based on confidence degrees to combine ontology mapping approaches , 2008, Int. J. Metadata Semant. Ontologies.

[71]  Stefan Schlobach,et al.  Non-Standard Reasoning Services for the Debugging of Description Logic Terminologies , 2003, IJCAI.

[72]  Peter Norvig,et al.  Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach , 1995 .

[73]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications , 2003, Description Logic Handbook.

[74]  Jürgen Bock,et al.  MapPSO results for OAEI 2010 , 2010, OM.

[75]  Holger Knublauch,et al.  The Protégé OWL Plugin: An Open Development Environment for Semantic Web Applications , 2004, SEMWEB.

[76]  Jérôme Euzenat,et al.  Semantic Precision and Recall for Ontology Alignment Evaluation , 2007, IJCAI.

[77]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  A Probabilistic-Logical Framework for Ontology Matching , 2010, AAAI.

[78]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative: Six Years of Experience , 2011, J. Data Semant..

[79]  Renata Vieira,et al.  A Cooperative Approach for Composite Ontology Mapping , 2008, J. Data Semant..

[80]  Chantal Reynaud,et al.  TaxoMap alignment and refinement modules: results for OAEI 2010 , 2010, OM.

[81]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  An Efficient Method for Computing Alignment Diagnoses , 2009, RR.

[82]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  Reasoning Support for Mapping Revision , 2009, J. Log. Comput..

[83]  Donald Davidson,et al.  On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme , 1973 .

[84]  Jérôme David,et al.  AROMA Results for OAEI 2009 , 2008, OM.

[85]  Dieter Fensel,et al.  Correspondence Patterns for Ontology Alignment , 2008, EKAW.

[86]  Matthew Richardson,et al.  Just Add Weights: Markov Logic for the Semantic Web , 2008, URSW.

[87]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  Ontology Integration Using Mappings: Towards Getting the Right Logical Consequences , 2009, ESWC.

[88]  Willard Van Orman Quine,et al.  Word and Object , 1960 .

[89]  Nadeschda Nikitina Semi-Automatic Revision of Formalized Knowledge , 2010, ECAI.

[90]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  Applying Logical Constraints to Ontology Matching , 2007, KI.

[91]  Jan Nößner,et al.  CODI: Combinatorial Optimization for Data Integration: results for OAEI 2011 , 2010, OM.

[92]  Renata Vieira,et al.  Comparing Argumentation Frameworks for Composite Ontology Matching , 2009, ArgMAS.

[93]  Enrico Motta,et al.  Managing Conflicting Beliefs with Fuzzy Trust on the Semantic Web , 2008, MICAI.

[94]  Ryutaro Ichise,et al.  Machine Learning Approach for Ontology Mapping Using Multiple Concept Similarity Measures , 2008, Seventh IEEE/ACIS International Conference on Computer and Information Science (icis 2008).

[95]  Mark A. Musen,et al.  Anchor-PROMPT: Using Non-Local Context for Semantic Matching , 2001, OIS@IJCAI.

[96]  PETER GÄRDENFORS,et al.  Belief Revision: Belief revision: An introduction , 2003 .

[97]  Mansur R. Kabuka,et al.  Ontology matching with semantic verification , 2009, J. Web Semant..

[98]  Harold W. Kuhn,et al.  The Hungarian method for the assignment problem , 1955, 50 Years of Integer Programming.

[99]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  Automating OAEI campaigns (first report) , 2010, IWEST@ISWC.

[100]  David S. Johnson,et al.  Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness , 1978 .

[101]  Bijan Parsia,et al.  Finding All Justifications of OWL DL Entailments , 2007, ISWC/ASWC.

[102]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  A Practical Implementation of Semantic Precision and Recall , 2010, 2010 International Conference on Complex, Intelligent and Software Intensive Systems.

[103]  Fausto Giunchiglia,et al.  Structure Preserving Semantic Matching , 2007, OM.

[104]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  A Reasoning-Based Support Tool for Ontology Mapping Evaluation , 2009, ESWC.

[105]  Luciano Serafini,et al.  Distributed Description Logics: Assimilating Information from Peer Sources , 2003, J. Data Semant..

[106]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  Reasoning with Inconsistent Ontologies , 2005, IJCAI.

[107]  S. Donovan The Sign of Four , 2011 .

[108]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  Incoherence as a Basis for Measuring the Quality of Ontology Mappings , 2008, OM.

[109]  Wendy Hall,et al.  The Semantic Web Revisited , 2006, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[110]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  An Efficient Method for Computing a Local Optimal Alignment Diagnosis , 2009 .