Comparing 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 frameworks, which consider different notions of acceptability: based on values and preferences between audiences promoting these values, based on the confidence level of the arguments, and based on voting on the arguments. We evaluate these frameworks using realistic ontologies from an established ontology matching evaluation test set. The best matcher varies depending on specific characteristics of each set, while considering voting on arguments the results are similar to the best matchers for all sets.