Centrality measurement on semantically multiplex social networks: divide-and-conquer approach

Semantic technologies exploit to support collaborations in social networks. However, these networks assume that linkages between actors should be ignored, more exactly, semantically identical. For example, in bibliometrics, links on network are described with only 'co-authoring' relationship between the actors. In this paper, we focus on analysing semantically multiplex social networks, representing various relationships between people simultaneously. Especially, we show how to discover important social patterns, from the networks. Thereby, we propose a divide-and-conquer approach based on semantic alignment function, separating the multiplex social networks with respect to concepts describing the relationship. Additionally, we exploit the relationships between topological features and the labels by statistical co-occurrence analysis. Finally, we demonstrate our three-layered semantic space with some examples.

[1]  Harith Alani,et al.  Identifying Communities of Practice through Ontology Network Analysis , 2003, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[2]  Leonard M. Freeman,et al.  A set of measures of centrality based upon betweenness , 1977 .

[3]  U. Brandes A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality , 2001 .

[4]  Jason J. Jung,et al.  Measuring semantic centrality based on building consensual ontology on social network , 2006 .

[5]  Frank Harary,et al.  Graph Theory , 2016 .

[6]  Jérôme Euzenat,et al.  From Personal Ontologies to Socialized Semantic Space , 2006 .

[7]  Carter T. Butts Latent Structure in Multiplex Relations , 2004 .

[8]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Wasserman, Stanley, and Katherine Faust, Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994. , 1994 .

[9]  John Scott What is social network analysis , 2010 .

[10]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  Small-World Phenomena and the Dynamics of Information , 2001, NIPS.

[11]  F. Harary,et al.  Eccentricity and centrality in networks , 1995 .

[12]  Gert Sabidussi,et al.  The centrality index of a graph , 1966 .

[13]  Jérôme Euzenat,et al.  Similarity-Based Ontology Alignment in OWL-Lite , 2004, ECAI.

[14]  W. Prinz,et al.  The imitative mind : development, evolution, and brain bases , 2002 .

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

[16]  Peter Mika Ontologies Are Us: A Unified Model of Social Networks and Semantics , 2005, International Semantic Web Conference.

[17]  Ngoc Thanh Nguyen Conflicts of Ontologies - Classification and Consensus-Based Methods for Resolving , 2006, KES.

[18]  S. Wasserman Conformity of two sociometric relations , 1987 .

[19]  James W. Minett,et al.  Self-organization and selection in the emergence of vocabulary , 2002, Complex..

[20]  A. Shimbel Structural parameters of communication networks , 1953 .

[21]  James A. Hendler,et al.  Agents and the Semantic Web , 2001, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[22]  Steffen Staab,et al.  Social Networks Applied , 2005, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[23]  Pengfei Shi,et al.  Multi-labeled Graph Matching - An algorithm Model for Schema Matching , 2005, ASIAN.

[24]  Jason J. Jung Collaborative Web Browsing Based on Semantic Extraction of User Interests with Bookmarks , 2005, J. Univers. Comput. Sci..

[25]  Munindar P. Singh,et al.  An adaptive social network for information access: Theoretical and experimental results , 2003, Appl. Artif. Intell..

[26]  James A. Hendler,et al.  Semantic depth and markup complexity , 2003, SMC'03 Conference Proceedings. 2003 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Conference Theme - System Security and Assurance (Cat. No.03CH37483).