Reaching agreement over ontology alignments

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 4273 LNCS, Issue , 2006, Pages 371-384

  Laera, Loredana ^a   Tamma, Valentina ^a   Euzenat, Jérôme ^b   Bench Capon, Trevor ^a   Payne, Terry ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b INRIA RHÔNE ALPES   (France)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; MULTI AGENT SYSTEMS; SEMANTICS; VOCABULARY CONTROL;

ALIGNMENT RATIONALES; ARGUMENTATION FRAMEWORK; CORRESPONDENCES; ONTOLOGY ALIGNMENTS;

DATA STRUCTURES;

EID: 33845424992     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/11926078_27     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. S. C. Bailin and W. Truszkowski. Ontology Negotiation: How Agents Can Really Get to Know Each Other. In Proceedings of the WRAC 2002, 2002.
2. T. Bench-Capon. Value based argumentation frameworks. In Proceedings of Non Monotonic Reasoning, pages 444 453, 2002.
3. T. Bench-Capon. Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-Based Argumentation Frameworks. In Journal of Logic and Computation, volume 13, pages 429-448, 2003.
4. T. Berners-Lee, J. Hendler, and O. Lassila. The Semantic Web. Scientific American, 284(5):34-43, 2001.
5. R. Dhamankar, Y. Lee, A. Doan, A. Halevy, and P. Domingos. iMAP: Discovering complex semantic matches between database schemas. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD), pages 383-394, 2004.
6. S. Doutre, T. Bench-Capon, and P. E. Dunne. Determining Preferences through Argumentation. In Proceedings of AI*IA'05, pages 98-109, 2005.
7. P. Dung. On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-person Games. In Artificial Intelligence, volume 77, pages 321-358, 1995.
8. M. Ehrig and S. Staab. QOM - Quick Ontology Mapping. In Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Conference, 2004.
9. J. Euzenat. Alignment infrastructure for ontology mediation and other applications. In M. Hepp, A. Polleres, F. van Harmelen, and M. Genesereth, editors, Proceedings of the First International workshop on Mediation in semantic web services, pages 81-95, 2005.
10. J. Euzenat and P. Valtchev. Similarity-based ontology alignment in OWL-Lite. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2006), 2004.
11. T. R. Gruber. A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2): 199-220, 1993.
12. L. Laera, V. Tamma, T. Bench-Capon, and J. Euzenat. Agent-based Argumentation for Ontology Alignments. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2006), 2006.
13. I. Rahwan, S. D. Ramchurn, N. R. Jennings, P. McBurney, S. Parsons, and L. Sonenberg. Argumentation-based negotiation. In The Knowledge Engineering Review, volume 18, pages 343-375, 2003.
14. P. Shvaiko and J. Euzenat. A survey of schema-based matching approaches. Journal on data semantics, 4:146-171, 2005.
15. P. Shvaiko, F. Giunchiglia, P. Pinheiro da Silva, and D. McGuinness. Web explanations for semantic heterogeneity discovery. In Proceedings of ESWC, pages 303-317, 2005.
16. C. Sierra, N. R. Jennings, P. Noriega, and S. Parsons. A Framework for Argumentation-Based Negotiation. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Intelligent Agents IV, Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, 1997.
17. N. Silva, P. Maio, and J. Rocha. An Approach to Ontology Mapping Negotiation. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Integrating Ontologies, 2005.
18. J. van Diggelen, R. Beun, F. Dignum, R. van Eijk, and J.-J. Meyer. A decentralized approach for establishing a shared communication vocabulary. In Proceedings of the AMKN, 2005.
19. P. Visser, D. Jones, T. Bench-Capon, and M. Shave. Assessing Heterogeneity by Classifying Ontology Mismatches. In N. Guarino, editor, Proceedings of the FOIS'98, 1998.