Ontology matching/Alignement d'ontologies in areas (2024-02-10)

The Semantic Web is an extension of the web that enables people to express knowledge in a way that machines can reason with it. At the web scale, this knowledge may be described using different ontologies, and alignments have been defined to express these differences. Furthermore, the same individual may be represented by different instances in different datasets. Dealing with knowledge heterogeneity in the Semantic Web requires comparing these knowledge structures. Our objective is to understand heterogeneity and benefit from this understanding, not to reduce diversity. In this context, we have studied and contributed to techniques and measures for comparing knowledge structures on the Semantic Web along three dimensions: ontologies, alignments, and instances. At the ontology level, we propose measures for the ontology space and alignment space. The first family of measures relies solely on the content of ontologies, while the second one takes advantage of alignments between ontologies. At the alignment level, we investigate how to assess the quality of alignments. First, we study how to extend classical controlled evaluation measures by considering the semantics of aligned ontologies while relaxing the all-or-nothing nature of logical entailment. We also propose estimating the quality of alignments when no reference alignment is available. At the instance level, we tackle the challenge of identifying resources from different knowledge graphs that represent the same entity. We follow an approach based on keys and alignments. Specifically, we propose the notion of a link key, algorithms for extracting them, and measures to assess their quality. Finally, we recast this work in the perspective of the dynamics and evolution of knowledge.

Agents have been used for simulating cultural evolution and cultural evolution can be used as a model for artificial agents. Previous results have shown that horizontal, or intra-generation, knowledge transmission allows agents to improve the quality of their knowledge to a certain level. Moreover, variation generated through vertical, or inter-generation, transmission allows agents to exceed that level. Such results were obtained under specific conditions such as the drastic selection of agents allowed to transmit their knowledge, seeding the process with correct knowledge or introducing artificial noise during transmission. Here, we question the necessity of such measures and study their impact on the quality of transmitted knowledge. For that purpose, we combine the settings of two previous experiments and relax these conditions (no strong selection of teachers, no fully correct seed, no introduction of artificial noise). The rationale is that if interactions lead agents to improve their overall knowledge quality, this should be sufficient to ensure correct knowledge transmission, and that transmission mechanisms are sufficiently imperfect to produce variation. In this setting, we confirm that vertical transmission improves on horizontal transmission even without drastic selection and oriented learning. We also show that horizontal transmission is able to compensate for the lack of parent selection if it is maintained for long enough. This means that it is not necessary to take the most successful agents as teachers, neither in vertical nor horizontal transmission, to cumulatively improve knowledge.

When agents independently learn knowledge, such as ontologies, about their environment, it may be diverse, incorrect or incomplete. This knowledge heterogeneity could lead agents to disagree, thus hindering their cooperation. Existing approaches usually deal with this interaction problem by relating ontologies, without modifying them, or, on the contrary, by focusing on building common knowledge. Here, we consider agents adapting ontologies learned from the environment in order to agree with each other when cooperating. In this scenario, fundamental questions arise: Do they achieve successful interaction? Can this process improve knowledge correctness? Do all agents end up with the same ontology? To answer these questions, we design a two-stage experiment. First, agents learn to take decisions about the environment by classifying objects and the learned classifiers are turned into ontologies. In the second stage, agents interact with each other to agree on the decisions to take and modify their ontologies accordingly. We show that agents indeed reduce interaction failure, most of the time they improve the accuracy of their knowledge about the environment, and they do not necessarily opt for the same ontology.

Ontology alignments enable agents to communicate while preserving heterogeneity in their knowledge. Alignments may not be provided as input and should be able to evolve when communication fails or when new information contradicting the alignment is acquired. The Alignment Repair Game (ARG) has been proposed for agents to simultaneously communicate and repair their alignments through adaptation operators when communication failures occur. ARG has been evaluated experimentally and the experiments showed that agents converge towards successful communication and improve their alignments. However, whether the adaptation operators are formally correct, complete or redundant could not be established by experiments. We introduce a logical model, Dynamic Epistemic Ontology Logic (DEOL), that enables us to answer these questions. This framework allows us (1) to express the ontologies and alignments used via a faithful translation from ARG to DEOL, (2) to model the ARG adaptation operators as dynamic modalities and (3) to formally define and establish the correctness, partial redundancy and incompleteness of the adaptation operators in ARG.

To reason and talk about the world, agents may use their own distinct vocabularies, structured into knowledge representations, also called ontologies. In order to communicate, they use alignments: translations between terms of their ontologies. aHowever, ontologies may change, requiring their alignments to evolve accordingly. Experimental cultural evolution offers a framework to study the mechanisms of their knowledge evolution. It has been applied to the evolution of alignments in the Alignment Repair Game (ARG). Experiments have shown that, through ARG, agents improve their alignments and reach successful communication. Yet, these experiments are not sufficient to understand the formal properties of cultural knowledge evolution. This thesis bridges experimental cultural knowledge evolution with a theoretical model of cultural knowledge evolution in logic. This is achieved by introducing Dynamic Epistemic Ontology Logic and defining a faithful translation of ARG in DEOL that (a) encodes the ontologies, (b) maps agents' ontologies and alignments to knowledge and beliefs, and (c) captures the adaptation operators through announcements and conservative upgrades. This model shows that all but one adaptation operator are correct, they are incomplete and some are partially redundant. Three differences between the ARG agents and their logical model explain these results, leading to an independent model of awareness based on partial valuations and weakly reflexive relations. An alternative model of ARG is then defined under which the formal properties are re-examined, showing that this model is closer to the original game. This is a first step towards defining a theoretical model of cultural knowledge evolution.

The semantic web aims at making web content interpretable. It is no less than offering knowledge representation at web scale. The main ingredients used in this context are the representation of assertional knowledge through graphs, the definition of the vocabularies used in graphs through ontologies, and the connection of these representations through the web. Artificial intelligence techniques and, more specifically, knowledge representation techniques, are put to use and to the test by the semantic web. Indeed, they have to face typical problems of the web: scale, heterogeneity, incompleteness, and dynamics. This chapter provides a short presentation of the state of the semantic web and refers to other chapters concerning those techniques at work in the semantic web.

Ontology matching aims at discovering mappings between the entities of two ontologies. It plays an important role in the integration of heterogeneous data sources that are described by ontologies. Interactive ontology matching involves domain experts in the matching process. In some approaches, the expert provides feedback about mappings between ontology entities, i.e., these approaches select mappings to present to the expert who replies which of them should be accepted or rejected, so taking advantage of the knowledge of domain experts towards finding an alignment. In this paper, we present Alin, an interactive ontology matching approach which uses expert feedback not only to approve or reject selected mappings, but also to dynamically improve the set of selected mappings, i.e., to interactively include and to exclude mappings from it. This additional use for expert answers aims at increasing in the benefit brought by each expert answer. For this purpose, Alin uses four techniques. Two techniques were used in previous versions of Alin to dynamically select concept and attribute mappings. Two new techniques are introduced in this paper: one to dynamically select relationship mappings and another one to dynamically reject inconsistent selected mappings using anti-patterns. We compared Alin with state-of-the-art tools, showing that it generates alignment of comparable quality.

Ontology alignments enable agents to communicate while preserving heterogeneity in their information. Alignments may not be provided as input and should be able to evolve when communication fails or when new information contradicting the alignment is acquired. In the Alignment Repair Game (ARG) this evolution is achieved via adaptation operators. ARG was evaluated experimentally and the experiments showed that agents converge towards successful communication and improve their alignments. However, whether the adaptation operators are formally correct, complete or redundant is still an open question. In this paper, we introduce a formal framework based on Dynamic Epistemic Logic that allows us to answer this question. This framework allows us (1) to express the ontologies and alignments used, (2) to model the ARG adaptation operators through announcements and conservative upgrades and (3) to formally establish the correctness, partial redundancy and incompleteness of the adaptation operators in ARG.

Ontology alignments enable interoperability between heterogeneous information resources. The Alignment Repair Game (ARG) specifically provides a way for agents to simultaneously communicate and improve the alignment when a communication failure occurs. This is achieved through applying adaptation operators that provide a revision strategy for agents to resolve failures with minimum information loss. In this paper, we explore how closely these operators resemble logical dynamics. We develop a variant of Dynamic Epistemic Logic called DEOL to capture the dynamics of ARG by modeling ontologies as knowledge and alignments as belief with respect to the plausibility relation. The dynamics of ARG are then achieved through announcements and conservative upgrades. With the representation of ARG in DEOL, we formally establish the limitations and the redundancy of the adaptation operators. More precisely, that for a complete logical reasoner, replace, addjoin and refine are redundant for one or both agents in the game and that add would be replaced by addjoin in all cases.

Interactive Ontology Matching considers the participation of domain experts during the matching process of two ontologies. An important step of this process is the selection of mappings to submit to the expert. These mappings can be between concepts, attributes or relationships of the ontologies. Existing approaches define the set of mapping suggestions only in the beginning of the process before expert involvement. In previous work, we proposed an approach to refine the set of mapping suggestions after each expert feedback, benefiting from the expert feedback to form a set of mapping suggestions of better quality. In this approach, only concept mappings were considered during the refinement. In this paper, we show a new approach to evaluate the benefit of also considering attribute mappings during the interactive phase of the process. The approach was evaluated using the OAEI conference data set, which showed an increase in recall without sacrificing precision. The approach was compared with the state-of-the-art, showing that the approach has generated alignment with state-of-the-art quality.

Ontology matching consists of finding correspondences between semantically related entities of different ontologies. The Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative (OAEI) aims at comparing ontology matching systems on precisely defined test cases. These test cases can be based on ontologies of different levels of complexity (from simple thesauri to expressive OWL ontologies) and use different evaluation modalities (e.g., blind evaluation, open evaluation, or consensus). The OAEI 2017 campaign offered 9 tracks with 23 test cases, and was attended by 21 participants. This paper is an overall presentation of that campaign.

Agents may use ontology alignments to communicate when they represent knowledge with different ontologies: alignments help reclassifying objects from one ontology to the other. These alignments may not be perfectly correct, yet agents have to proceed. They can take advantage of their experience in order to evolve alignments: upon communication failure, they will adapt the alignments to avoid reproducing the same mistake. Such repair experiments had been performed in the framework of networks of ontologies related by alignments. They revealed that, by playing simple interaction games, agents can effectively repair random networks of ontologies. Here we repeat these experiments and, using new measures, show that previous results were underestimated. We introduce new adaptation operators that improve those previously considered. We also allow agents to go beyond the initial operators in two ways: they can generate new correspondences when they discard incorrect ones, and they can provide less precise answers. The combination of these modalities satisfy the following properties: (1) Agents still converge to a state in which no mistake occurs. (2) They achieve results far closer to the correct alignments than previously found. (3) They reach again 100% precision and coherent alignments.

Agents may use different ontologies for representing knowledge and take advantage of alignments between ontologies in order to communicate. Such alignments may be provided by dedicated algorithms, but their accuracy is far from satisfying. We already explored operators allowing agents to repair such alignments while using them for communicating. The question remained of the capability of agents to craft alignments from scratch in the same way. Here we explore the use of expanding repair operators for that purpose. When starting from empty alignments, agents fails to create them as they have nothing to repair. Hence, we introduce the capability for agents to risk adding new correspondences when no existing one is useful. We compare and discuss the results provided by this modality and show that, due to this generative capability, agents reach better results than without it in terms of the accuracy of their alignments. When starting with empty alignments, alignments reach the same quality level as when starting with random alignments, thus providing a reliable way for agents to build alignment from scratch through communication.

Experimental cultural evolution has been convincingly applied to the evolution of natural language and we aim at applying it to knowledge. Indeed, knowledge can be thought of as a shared artefact among a population influenced through communication with others. It can be seen as resulting from contradictory forces: internal consistency, i.e., pressure exerted by logical constraints, against environmental and social pressure, i.e., the pressure exerted by the world and the society agents live in. However, adapting to environmental and social pressure may lead agents to adopt the same knowledge. From an ecological perspective, this is not particularly appealing: species can resist changes in their environment because of the diversity of the solutions that they can offer. This problem may be approached by involving diversity as an internal constraint resisting external pressure towards uniformity.

Ontology Matching is the task of finding a set of entity correspondences between a pair of ontologies, i.e. an alignment. It has been receiving a lot of attention due to its broad applications. Many techniques have been proposed, among which the ones applying interactive strategies. An interactive ontology matching strategy uses expert knowledge towards improving the quality of the final alignment. When these strategies are based on the expert feedback to validate correspondences, it is important to establish criteria for selecting the set of correspondences to be shown to the expert. A bad definition of this set can prevent the algorithm from finding the right alignment or it can delay convergence. In this work we present techniques which, when used simultaneously, improve the set of candidate correspondences. These techniques are incorporated in an interactive ontology matching approach, called ALINSyn. Experiments successfully show the potential of our proposal.