Ontology alignment argumentation with mutual dependency between arguments and mappings

For a successful communication, autonomous entities (e.g. agents, web services, peers) must reconcile vocabulary used in their ontologies. The result is a set of mappings between ontology entities. Since each party might have its own perspective about what are the best mappings, conflicts will arise. Toward a mapping consensus building between information exchanging parties, this paper proposes an approach based on a formal argumentation framework, whose existing ontology matching algorithms generate the mappings, which are further interpreted into semantic arguments employed during the argumentation. The proposal models a mutual dependency between the mappings and arguments, which goes beyond the state of the art in argumentation-based ontology alignment negotiation, better reflecting the requirements of the task.

[1]  Dieter Fensel,et al.  Ontologies: A silver bullet for knowledge management and electronic commerce , 2002 .

[2]  M. Wooldridge,et al.  An ontology for automated negotiation , 2002 .

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

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

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

[6]  Walter Truszkowski,et al.  Ontology Negotiation: How Agents Can Really Get to Know Each Other , 2002, WRAC.

[7]  Jérôme Euzenat,et al.  Reaching Agreement over Ontology Alignments , 2006, International Semantic Web Conference.

[8]  Antoine Isaac,et al.  Using Quantitative Aspects of Alignment Generation for Argumentation on Mappings , 2008, OM.

[9]  Alon Y. Halevy,et al.  Enterprise information integration: successes, challenges and controversies , 2005, SIGMOD '05.

[10]  Steffen Staab,et al.  Semantic Web and Peer-to-Peer - Decentralized Management and Exchange of Knowledge and Information , 2006 .

[11]  James A. Hendler,et al.  The Semantic Web" in Scientific American , 2001 .

[12]  Jonathan Lawry,et al.  Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty , 2009 .

[13]  N. Iyadrahwa,et al.  Argumentation-based negotiation , 2004 .

[14]  Antonio Badia,et al.  Ontologies , 2001, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[15]  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..

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

[17]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  Similarity flooding: a versatile graph matching algorithm and its application to schema matching , 2002, Proceedings 18th International Conference on Data Engineering.

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

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

[20]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Argumentation in artificial intelligence , 2007, Artif. Intell..