Comparing argumentation frameworks for composite ontology matching

Authors:
Cássia Trojahn;Paulo Quaresma;Renata Vieira;Antoine Isaac
Affiliations:
Departmento de Informática, Universidade de Évora, Portugal;Departmento de Informática, Universidade de Évora, Portugal;Faculdade de Informática, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil;Department of Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Venue:
ArgMAS'09 Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems
Year:
2009

Citing 12
Cited 2

On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games

Artificial Intelligence
MAFRA - A MApping FRAmework for Distributed Ontologies

EKAW '02 Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management. Ontologies and the Semantic Web
An Ontology Based Approach to Automated Negotiation

AAMAS '02 Revised Papers from the Workshop on Agent Mediated Electronic Commerce on Agent-Mediated Electronic Commerce IV, Designing Mechanisms and Systems
Ontology negotiation between intelligent information agents

The Knowledge Engineering Review
ANEMONE: an effective minimal ontology negotiation environment

AAMAS '06 Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems
Ontology Matching

Ontology Matching
Argumentation over ontology correspondences in MAS

Proceedings of the 6th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems
Falcon-AO: A practical ontology matching system

Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web
An empirical study of instance-based ontology matching

ISWC'07/ASWC'07 Proceedings of the 6th international The semantic web and 2nd Asian conference on Asian semantic web conference
A cooperative approach for composite ontology mapping

Journal on data semantics X
An extended value-based argumentation framework for ontology mapping with confidence degrees

ArgMAS'07 Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Argumentation in multi-agent systems
Reaching agreement over ontology alignments

ISWC'06 Proceedings of the 5th international conference on The Semantic Web

The role of the environment in agreement technologies

Artificial Intelligence Review
Research opportunities for argumentation in social networks

Artificial Intelligence Review

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

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 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 evaluation test case. 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 cases.