Hybrid Model for Semantic Similarity Measurement

Expressive knowledge representations with flexible semantic similarity measures are central for the functioning of semantic information retrieval, information integration, matchmaking etc. Existing knowledge representations provide no or not sufficient support to model the scope of properties. While properties in feature- and geometric models always refer to the whole concept, structured representations such as the alignment model provide a limited support for scope by assigning properties to objects which are part of the whole entity. Network models do not support properties at all. In this paper we propose a hybrid model: a structured knowledge representation combining the relational structure of semantic nets with property-based description of feature- or geometric models. It supports to model properties—features or dimensions—and their scope by taxonomic or non-taxonomic relations between a concept and its properties. The similarity measure computes the similarity in consideration of the scope of each property.

[1]  Amos Tversky,et al.  On the relation between common and distinctive feature models , 1987 .

[2]  L. Marks,et al.  Optional processes in similarity judgments , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[3]  Patrick Suppes,et al.  Chapter 12 – Geometrical Representations , 1989 .

[4]  F ATTNEAVE,et al.  Dimensions of similarity. , 1950, The American journal of psychology.

[5]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Knowledge Representation , 1998 .

[6]  J. Devore,et al.  Statistics: The Exploration and Analysis of Data , 1986 .

[7]  Edward E. Smith.  Concepts and induction , 1989 .

[8]  Peter Gärdenfors.  Some tenets of cognitive semantics , 1999 .

[9]  A. Tversky.  Features of Similarity , 1977 .

[10]  P. Gärdenfors,et al.  Cognitive semantics : meaning and cognition , 1999 .

[11]  Angela Schwering,et al.  Spatial Relations for Semantic Similarity Measurement , 2005, ER.

[12]  R. Shepard.  Stimulus and response generalization: A stochastic model relating generalization to distance in psychological space , 1957 .

[13]  M. Raubal.  Formalizing Conceptual Spaces , 2004 .

[14]  Max J. Egenhofer,et al.  Determining Semantic Similarity among Entity Classes from Different Ontologies , 2003, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..

[15]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Conceptual spaces - the geometry of thought , 2000 .

[16]  Amos Tversky,et al.  Studies of similarity , 1978 .

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

[18]  Robert L. Goldstone.  Similarity, interactive activation, and mapping , 1994 .

[19]  A. Tversky,et al.  Similarity, separability, and the triangle inequality. , 1982, Psychological review.

[20]  M. Posner.  Foundations of cognitive science , 1989 .

[21]  E. Rosch,et al.  Cognition and Categorization , 1980 .

[22]  A. Tversky,et al.  Similarity, Separability, and the Triangle Inequality , 1982 .

[23]  R. Shepard.  Stimulus and response generalization: deduction of the generalization gradient from a trace model. , 1958, Psychological review.

[24]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  How to make the Semantic Web more semantic , 2004 .

[25]  R. Shepard.  Stimulus and response generalization: tests of a model relating generalization to distance in psychological space. , 1958, Journal of experimental psychology.

[26]  Max J. Egenhofer,et al.  Assessing semantic similarity among spatial entity classes , 2000 .

[27]  D. Gentner,et al.  Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. , 1997 .

[28]  Patrick Suppes,et al.  Foundations of Measurement, Vol. II: Geometrical, Threshold, and Probabilistic Representations , 1989 .

[29]  Achille C. Varzi,et al.  Formal Ontology in Information Systems : proceedings of the Third International Conference (FOIS-2004) , 2004 .