An Argumentation Framework Based on Strengthfor Ontology Mapping
نویسندگان
چکیده
In the field of ontology mapping, using argumentation to combine different mapping approaches is an innovative research area. We had extended the Value-based Argumentation Framework (VAF) in order to represent arguments with confidence degrees, according to the similarity degree between the terms being mapped. The mappings are computed by agents using different mapping approaches. Based on their preferences and confidences, the agents compute their preferred mapping sets. The arguments in such preferred sets are viewed as the set of globally acceptable arguments. In previous work we had used discrete classes to represent the confidence degrees (certainty and uncertainty). In this paper, we propose to use continuous values from the interval [0,1]. Here, confidence is treated as strength. Using a threshold for the strength we can reduce the set of mappings and adjust the values of precision. We evaluate the use of strength against the previous confidence as discrete classes. The results are promising, especially what concerns precision.
منابع مشابه
An argumentation framework based on confidence degrees to combine ontology mapping approaches
Ontology mapping has a key importance for applications such as information retrieval, database integration, and agent-communication. This paper presents an Argumentation Framework, with confidence degrees associated to the arguments, to combine ontologymapping approaches. Our agents apply individualmapping algorithms and cooperate in order to exchange their local results (arguments). Based on t...
متن کاملAn Extended Value-Based Argumentation Framework for Ontology Mapping with Confidence Degrees
Heuristics to combine different approaches for ontology mapping have been proposed in the literature. This paper proposes to use abstract argumentation frameworks to combine such approaches. We extend the Value-based Argumentation Framework (VAF)[2], in order to represent arguments with confidence degrees. Our agents apply individual mapping algorithms and cooperate in order to exchange their l...
متن کاملOn logical specifications of the Argument Interchange Format
The Argument Interchange Format (AIF) has been devised in order to support the interchange of ideas and data between different projects and applications in the area of computational argumentation. In order to support such interchange, an abstract ontology for argumentation is presented, which serves as an interlingua between various more concrete argumentation languages. In this paper, we aim t...
متن کاملComparing Argumentation Frameworks for Composite Ontology Matching
Resolving the semantic heterogeneity problem is crucial to allow interoperability between ontology-based systems. Ontology matching based on argumentation is an innovative research area that aims at solving this issue, where agents encapsulate different matching techniques and the distinct mapping results are shared, compared, chosen and agreed. In this paper, we compare three argumentation fra...
متن کاملUsing Quantitative Aspects of Alignment Generation for Argumentation on Mappings
State-of-the art mappers articulate several techniques using different sources of knowledge in an unified process. An important issue of ontology mapping is to find ways of choosing among many techniques and their variations, and then combining their results. For this, an innovative and promising option is to use frameworks dealing with arguments for or against correspondences. In this paper, w...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2008