An Ontology-Based Similarity between Sets of Concepts

To help sharing knowledge in those contexts where documents and services are annotated with semantic information, such as the Semantic Web, defining and implementing the similarity between sets of concepts belonging to a common ontology may prove very useful. In fact, if both the required and the provided pieces of information (be they textual documents, services, images, or whatever) are annotated with sets of concepts taken from a reference ontology O, the evaluation of how good a piece of information P is, w.r.t. the required one R, may be based on the similarity between the two sets of concepts that describe P and R. One of the first applications of the agent technology, aimed at “reducing work and information overload”, was that of retrieving and filtering information in an automatic way. Thus, the possibility to calculate the semantic distance between two sets of concepts finds a natural application in the agent field, in particular for improving those agents that act as “digital butlers” for their human owners, by exploring the Semantic Web and looking for useful documents and/or services. Unfortunately, the metrics for calculating the semantic distance between two sets of concepts that can be found in the literature, are often very simple and do not meet some requirements that, up to us, make the metric closer to the common sense reasoning. For this reason, we have designed and implemented two new algorithms for computing the similarity between sets of concepts belonging to the same ontology.

[1]  Silvana Castano,et al.  Ontology-Addressable Contents in P2P Networks , 2003 .

[2]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  The Semantic Web: The Roles of XML and RDF , 2000, IEEE Internet Comput..

[3]  Troels Andreasen,et al.  On Measuring Similarity for Conceptual Querying , 2002, FQAS.

[4]  Viviana Mascardi,et al.  A Semantic Information Retrieval Advertisement and Policy Based System for a P2P Network , 2005, DBISP2P.

[5]  Paolo Bouquet,et al.  Asking and answering semantic queries , 2004 .

[6]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  A Roadmap of Agent Research and Development , 2004, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[7]  Jørgen Fischer Nilsson A logico-algebraic framework for ontologies , 2001 .

[8]  Philip Resnik,et al.  Semantic Similarity in a Taxonomy: An Information-Based Measure and its Application to Problems of Ambiguity in Natural Language , 1999, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

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

[10]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  Reviewing the design of DAML+OIL: an ontology language for the semantic web , 2002, AAAI/IAAI.

[11]  Martha Palmer,et al.  Verb Semantics and Lexical Selection , 1994, ACL.

[12]  Martin Chodorow,et al.  Combining local context and wordnet similarity for word sense identification , 1998 .

[13]  Christiane Fellbaum,et al.  Combining Local Context and Wordnet Similarity for Word Sense Identification , 1998 .

[14]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  Peer Selection in Peer-to-Peer Networks with Semantic Topologies , 2004, ICSNW.

[15]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  Enabling knowledge representation on the Web by extending RDF schema , 2001, WWW '01.

[16]  Silvana Castano,et al.  Semantic Information Interoperability in Open Networked Systems , 2004, ICSNW.

[17]  Graeme Hirst,et al.  Lexical chains as representations of context for the detection and correction of malapropisms , 1995 .

[18]  Roy Rada,et al.  Development and application of a metric on semantic nets , 1989, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[19]  Pattie Maes,et al.  Agents that reduce work and information overload , 1994, CACM.