Ontology matching/Alignement d'ontologies in areas (2024-07-07)

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.

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.

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.

Ontology matching consists of finding correspondences between semantically related entities of two ontologies. OAEI campaigns aim at comparing ontology matching systems on precisely defined test cases. These test cases can use ontologies of different nature (from simple thesauri to expressive OWL ontologies) and use different modalities, e.g., blind evaluation, open evaluation, or consensus. OAEI 2016 offered 9 tracks with 22 test cases, and was attended by 21 participants. This paper is an overall presentation of the OAEI 2016 campaign.

Ontology matching consists of finding correspondences between semantically related entities of two ontologies. OAEI campaigns aim at comparing ontology matching systems on precisely defined test cases. These test cases can use ontologies of different nature (from simple thesauri to expressive OWL ontologies) and use different modalities, e.g., blind evaluation, open evaluation and consensus. OAEI 2015 offered 8 tracks with 15 test cases followed by 22 participants. Since 2011, the campaign has been using a new evaluation modality which provides more automation to the evaluation. This paper is an overall presentation of the OAEI 2015 campaign.

Alignments between ontologies usually come with numerical attributes expressing the confidence of each correspondence. Semantics supporting such confidences must generalise the semantics of alignments without confidence. There exists a semantics which satisfies this but introduces a discontinuity between weighted and non-weighted interpretations. Moreover, it does not provide a calculus for reasoning with weighted ontology alignments. This paper introduces a calculus for such alignments. It is given by an infinite relation-type algebra, the elements of which are weighted taxonomic relations. In addition, it approximates the non-weighted case in a continuous manner.

An important element of implementing a data integration solution in multi-disciplinary engineering settings, consists in identifying and defining relations between the different engineering data models and data sets that need to be integrated. The ontology matching field investigates methods and tools for discovering relations between semantic data sources and representing them. In this chapter, we look at ontology matching issues in the context of integrating engineering knowledge. We first discuss what types of relations typically occur between engineering objects in multi-disciplinary engineering environments taking a use case in the power plant engineering domain as a running example. We then overview available technologies for mappings definition between ontologies, focusing on those currently most widely used in practice and briefly discuss their capabilities for mapping representation and potential processing. Finally, we illustrate how mappings in the sample project in power plant engineering domain can be generated from the definitions in the Expressive and Declarative Ontology Alignment Language (EDOAL).

Networks of ontologies are made of a collection of logic theories, called ontologies, related by alignments. They arise naturally in distributed contexts in which theories are developed and maintained independently, such as the semantic web. In networks of ontologies, inconsistency can come from two different sources: local inconsistency in a particular ontology or alignment, and global inconsistency between them. Belief revision is well-defined for dealing with ontologies; we investigate how it can apply to networks of ontologies. We formulate revision postulates for alignments and networks of ontologies based on an abstraction of existing semantics of networks of ontologies. We show that revision operators cannot be simply based on local revision operators on both ontologies and alignments. We adapt the partial meet revision framework to networks of ontologies and show that it indeed satisfies the revision postulates. Finally, we consider strategies based on network characteristics for designing concrete revision operators.

Algebras of relations were shown useful in managing ontology alignments. They make it possible to aggregate alignments disjunctively or conjunctively and to propagate alignments within a network of ontologies. The previously considered algebra of relations contains taxonomical relations between classes. However, compositional inference using this algebra is sound only if we assume that classes which occur in alignments have nonempty extensions. Moreover, this algebra covers relations only between classes. Here we introduce a new algebra of relations, which, first, solves the limitation of the previous one, and second, incorporates all qualitative taxonomical relations that occur between individuals and concepts, including the relations "is a" and "is not". We prove that this algebra is coherent with respect to the simple semantics of alignments.

Ontology matching consists of finding correspondences between semantically related entities of two ontologies. OAEI campaigns aim at comparing ontology matching systems on precisely defined test cases. These test cases can use ontologies of different nature (from simple thesauri to expressive OWL ontologies) and use different modalities, e.g., blind evaluation, open evaluation and consensus. OAEI 2014 offered 7 tracks with 9 test cases followed by 14 participants. Since 2010, the campaign has been using a new evaluation modality which provides more automation to the evaluation. This paper is an overall presentation of the OAEI 2014 campaign.

Le web sémantique ambitionne de rendre le contenu du web accessible au calcul. Il ne s'agit rien moins que de représenter de la connaissance à l'échelle du web. Les principales technologies utilisées dans ce cadre sont: la représentation de connaissance assertionnelle à l'aide de graphes, la définition du vocabulaire de ces graphes à l'aide d'ontologies, la connexion des représentations à travers le web, et leur appréhension pour interpréter la connaissance ainsi exprimée et répondre à des requêtes. Les techniques d'intelligence artificielle, et principalement de représentation de connaissances, y sont donc mises à contribution et à l'épreuve. En effet, elles sont confrontées à des problèmes typiques du web tels que l'échelle, l'hétérogénéité, l'incomplétude, l'incohérence et la dynamique. Ce chapitre propose une courte présentation de l'état du domaine et renvoie aux autres chapitres concernant les technologies mises en oeuvre dans le web sémantique.

Alignments between ontologies may be established through agents holding such ontologies attempting at communicating and taking appropriate action when communication fails. This approach has the advantage of not assuming that everything should be set correctly before trying to communicate and of being able to overcome failures. We test here the adaptation of this approach to alignment repair, i.e., the improvement of incorrect alignments. For that purpose, we perform a series of experiments in which agents react to mistakes in alignments. The agents only know about their ontologies and alignments with others and they act in a fully decentralised way. We show that such a society of agents is able to converge towards successful communication through improving the objective correctness of alignments. The obtained results are on par with a baseline of a priori alignment repair algorithms.

Alignments between ontologies may be established through agents holding such ontologies attempting at communicating and taking appropriate action when communication fails. This approach, that we call cultural repair, has the advantage of not assuming that everything should be set correctly before trying to communicate and of being able to overcome failures. We test here the adaptation of this approach to alignment repair, i.e., the improvement of incorrect alignments. For that purpose, we perform a series of experiments in which agents react to mistakes in alignments. The agents only know about their ontologies and alignments with others and they act in a fully decentralised way. We show that cultural repair is able to converge towards successful communication through improving the objective correctness of alignments. The obtained results are on par with a baseline of a priori alignment repair algorithms.

The semantic web has led to the deployment of ontologies on the web connected through various relations and, in particular, alignments of their vocabularies. There exists several semantics for alignments which make difficult interoperation between different interpretation of networks of ontologies. Here we present an abstraction of these semantics which allows for defining the notions of closure and consistency for networks of ontologies independently from the precise semantics. We also show that networks of ontologies with specific notions of morphisms define categories of networks of ontologies.

Many data sets on the web contain analogous data which represent the same resources in the world, so it is helpful to interlink different data sets for sharing information. However, finding correct links is very challenging because there are many instances to compare. In this paper, an interlinking method is proposed to interlink instances across different data sets. The input is class correspondences, property correspondences and a set of sample links that are assessed by users as either "positive" or "negative". We apply a machine learning method, Version Space, in order to construct a classifier, which is called interlinking pattern, that can justify correct links and incorrect links for both data sets. We improve the learning method so that it resolves the no-conjunctive-pattern problem. We call it Extended Version Space. Experiments confirm that our method with only 1% of sample links already reaches a high F-measure (around 0.96-0.99). The F-measure quickly converges, being improved by nearly 10% than other comparable approaches.

Context-based matching finds correspondences between entities from two ontologies by relating them to other resources. A general view of context-based matching is designed by analysing existing such matchers. This view is instantiated in a path-driven approach that (a) anchors the ontologies to external ontologies, (b) finds sequences of entities (path) that relate entities to match within and across these resources, and (c) uses algebras of relations for combining the relations obtained along these paths. Parameters governing such a system are identified and made explicit. They are used to conduct experiments with different parameter configurations in order to assess their influence. In particular, experiments confirm that restricting the set of ontologies reduces the time taken at the expense of recall and F-measure. Increasing path length within ontologies increases recall and F-measure as well. In addition, algebras of relations allows for a finer analysis, which shows that increasing path length provides more correct or non precise correspondences, but marginally increases incorrect correspondences.

Ontology matching consists of finding correspondences between semantically related entities of two ontologies. OAEI campaigns aim at comparing ontology matching systems on precisely defined test cases. These test cases can use ontologies of different nature (from simple thesauri to expressive OWL ontologies) and use different modalities, e.g., blind evaluation, open evaluation and consensus. OAEI 2013 offered 6 tracks with 8 test cases followed by 23 participants. Since 2010, the campaign has been using a new evaluation modality which provides more automation to the evaluation. This paper is an overall presentation of the OAEI 2013 campaign.

The OAEI Benchmark test set has been used for many years as a main reference to evaluate and compare ontology matching systems. However, this test set has barely varied since 2004 and has become a relatively easy task for matchers. In this paper, we present the design of a flexible test generator based on an extensible set of alterators which may be used programmatically for generating different test sets from different seed ontologies and different alteration modalities. It has been used for reproducing Benchmark both with the original seed ontology and with other ontologies. This highlights the remarkable stability of results over different generations and the preservation of difficulty across seed ontologies, as well as a systematic bias towards the initial Benchmark test set and the inability of such tests to identify an overall winning matcher. These were exactly the properties for which Benchmark had been designed. Furthermore, the generator has been used for providing new test sets aiming at increasing the difficulty and discriminability of Benchmark. Although difficulty may be easily increased with the generator, attempts to increase discriminability proved unfruitful. However, efforts towards this goal raise questions about the very nature of discriminability.

This report presents the second version of the interlinking module for the Datalift platform as well as strategies for future developments.

The goal of the Ready4SmartCities project is to support energy data interoperability in the context of SmartCities. It keeps a precise focus on building and urban data. Work package 2 is more specifically concerned with identifying the knowledge and data resources available or needed, that support energy management system interoperability. This deliverable defines the strategy to be used in WP2 for achieving its goal. It is made of two parts: identifying domains and stakeholders specific to the WP2 activity and the methodology used in WP2 and WP3.

After years of research on ontology matching, it is reasonable to consider several questions: is the field of ontology matching still making progress? Is this progress significant enough to pursue some further research? If so, what are the particularly promising directions? To answer these questions, we review the state of the art of ontology matching and analyze the results of recent ontology matching evaluations. These results show a measurable improvement in the field, the speed of which is albeit slowing down. We conjecture that significant improvements can be obtained only by addressing important challenges for ontology matching. We present such challenges with insights on how to approach them, thereby aiming to direct research into the most promising tracks and to facilitate the progress of the field.

Ontology matching consists of finding correspondences between semantically related entities of two ontologies. OAEI campaigns aim at comparing ontology matching systems on precisely defined test cases. These test cases can use ontologies of different nature (from simple thesauri to expressive OWL ontologies) and use different modalities, e.g., blind evaluation, open evaluation, consensus. OAEI 2012 offered 7 tracks with 9 test cases followed by 21 participants. Since 2010, the campaign has been using a new evaluation modality which provides more automation to the evaluation. This paper is an overall presentation of the OAEI 2012 campaign.

This deliverable reports on the current status of the service implementation for the automatic evaluation of matching tools, and on the final status of those services. These services have been used in the third SEALS evaluation of matching systems, held in Spring 2012 in coordination with the OAEI 2011.5 campaign. We worked mainly on the tasks of modifying the WP12 BPEL work-flow to introduce new features introduced in the RES 1.2 version; testing the modified work-flows on a local installation and on the SEALS Platform; writing transformations of result data to be compliant with the new SEALS ontologies specifications; and finally, extending the SEALS client for ontology matching evaluation for better supporting the automation of WP12 evaluation campaigns and to advance in the integration with SEALS repositories. We report the results obtained while accomplishing these tasks.

Ontology mappings are often assigned a weight or confidence factor by matchers. Nonetheless, few semantic accounts have been given so far for such weights. This paper presents a formal semantics for weighted mappings between different ontologies. It is based on a classificational interpretation of mappings: if O1 and O2 are two ontologies used to classify a common set X, then mappings between O1 and O2 are interpreted to encode how elements of X classified in the concepts of O1 are re-classified in the concepts of O2, and weights are interpreted to measure how precise and complete re-classifications are. This semantics is justifiable by extensional practice of ontology matching. It is a conservative extension of a semantics of crisp mappings. The paper also includes properties that relate mapping entailment with description logic constructors.

Finding alignments between ontologies is a very important operation for ontology engineering. It allows for establishing links between ontologies, either to integrate them in an application or to relate developed ontologies to context. It is even more critical for networked ontologies. Incorrect alignments may lead to unwanted consequences throughout the whole network and incomplete alignments may fail to provide the expected consequences. Yet, there is no well established methodology available for matching ontologies. We propose methodological guidelines that build on previously disconnected results and experiences.

This deliverable reports on the results of the second SEALS evaluation campaign (for WP12 it is the third evaluation campaign), which has been carried out in coordination with the OAEI 2011.5 campaign. Opposed to OAEI 2010 and 2011 the full set of OAEI tracks has been executed with the help of SEALS technology. 19 systems have participated and five data sets have been used. Two of these data sets are new and have not been used in previous OAEI campaigns. In this deliverable we report on the data sets used in the campaign, the execution of the campaign, and we present and discuss the evaluation results.

In a semantic P2P network, peers use separate ontologies and rely on alignments between their ontologies for translating queries. Nonetheless, alignments may be limited -unsound or incomplete- and generate flawed translations, leading to unsatisfactory answers. In this paper we present a trust mechanism that can assist peers to select those in the network that are better suited to answer their queries. The trust that a peer has towards another peer depends on a specific query and represents the probability that the latter peer will provide a satisfactory answer. We have implemented the trust technique and conducted an evaluation. Experimental results showed that trust values converge as more queries are sent and answers received. Furthermore, the use of trust brings a gain in query-answering performance.

In a semantic P2P network, peers use separate ontologies and rely on alignments between their ontologies for translating queries. However, alignments may be limited unsound or incomplete and generate flawed translations, and thereby produce unsatisfactory answers. In this paper we propose a trust mechanism that can assist peers to select those in the network that are better suited to answer their queries. The trust that a peer has towards another peer is subject to a specific query and approximates the probability that the latter peer will provide a satisfactory answer. In order to compute trust, we exploit the information provided by peers' ontologies and alignments, along with the information that comes from peers' experience. Trust values are refined over time as more queries are sent and answers received, and we prove that these approximations converge.

Alignments represent correspondences between entities of two ontologies. They are produced from the ontologies by ontology matchers. In order for matchers to exchange alignments and for applications to manipulate matchers and alignments, a minimal agreement is necessary. The Alignment API provides abstractions for the notions of network of ontologies, alignments and correspondences as well as building blocks for manipulating them such as matchers, evaluators, renderers and parsers. We recall the building blocks of this API and present here the version 4 of the Alignment API through some of its new features: ontology proxys, the expressive alignment language EDOAL and evaluation primitives.

In the area of semantic technologies, benchmarking and systematic evaluation is not yet as established as in other areas of computer science, e.g., information retrieval. In spite of successful attempts, more effort and experience are required in order to achieve such a level of maturity. In this paper, we report results and lessons learned from the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative (OAEI), a benchmarking initiative for ontology matching. The goal of this work is twofold: on the one hand, we document the state of the art in evaluating ontology matching methods and provide potential participants of the initiative with a better understanding of the design and the underlying principles of the OAEI campaigns. On the other hand, we report experiences gained in this particular area of semantic technologies to potential developers of benchmarking for other kinds of systems. For this purpose, we describe the evaluation design used in the OAEI campaigns in terms of datasets, evaluation criteria and workflows, provide a global view on the results of the campaigns carried out from 2005 to 2010 and discuss upcoming trends, both specific to ontology matching and generally relevant for the evaluation of semantic technologies. Finally, we argue that there is a need for a further automation of benchmarking to shorten the feedback cycle for tool developers.

There are many experiments with buildings that communicate information to and react to instructions from inhabiting systems. Fortunately, the life of people does not stop at the door of those buildings. It is thus very important that from one building to another, from a building to its outside, and from a building considered as a whole to specific rooms, continuity in the perceived information and potential actions be ensured. One way to achieve this would be by standardising representation vocabularies that any initiative should follow. But, at such an early stage, this would be an obstacle to innovation, because experimenters do not know yet what is needed in their context. We advocate that semantic technologies, in addition to be already recognised as a key component in communicating building platforms, are adequate tools for ensuring interoperability between building settings. For that purpose, we first present how these technologies (RDF, OWL, SPARQL, Alignment) can be used within ambient intelligent applications. Then, we review several solutions for ensuring interoperability between heterogeneous building settings, in particular through online embedded matching, alignment servers or collaborative matching. We describe the state of the art in ontology matching and how it can be used for providing interoperability between semantic descriptions.

Ontology matching consists of finding correspondences between entities of two ontologies. OAEI campaigns aim at comparing ontology matching systems on precisely defined test cases. Test cases can use ontologies of different nature (from simple directories to expressive OWL ontologies) and use different modalities, e.g., blind evaluation, open evaluation, consensus. OAEI-2011 builds over previous campaigns by having 4 tracks with 6 test cases followed by 18 participants. Since 2010, the campaign introduces a new evaluation modality in association with the SEALS project. A subset of OAEI test cases is included in this new modality which provides more automation to the evaluation and more direct feedback to the participants. This paper is an overall presentation of the OAEI 2011 campaign.

This report presents the first version of the interlinking module for the Datalift platform as well as strategies for future developments.

The OAEI Benchmark data set has been used as a main reference to evaluate and compare matching systems. It requires matching an ontology with systematically modified versions of itself. However, it has two main drawbacks: it has not varied since 2004 and it has become a relatively easy task for matchers. In this paper, we present the design of a modular test generator that overcomes these drawbacks. Using this generator, we have reproduced Benchmark both with the original seed ontology and with other ontologies. Evaluating different matchers on these generated tests, we have observed that (a) the difficulties encountered by a matcher at a test are preserved across the seed ontology, (b) contrary to our expectations, we found no systematic positive bias towards the original data set which has been available for developers to test their systems, and (c) the generated data sets have consistent results across matchers and across seed ontologies. However, the discriminant power of the generated tests is still too low and more tests would be necessary to draw definitive conclusions.

The web of data consists of data published on the web in such a way that they can be interpreted and connected together. It is thus critical to establish links between these data, both for the web of data and for the semantic web that it contributes to feed. We consider here the various techniques developed for that purpose and analyze their commonalities and differences. We propose a general framework and show how the diverse techniques fit in the framework. From this framework we consider the relation between data interlinking and ontology matching. Although, they can be considered similar at a certain level (they both relate formal entities), they serve different purposes, but would find a mutual benefit at collaborating. We thus present a scheme under which it is possible for data linking tools to take advantage of ontology alignments.

The Web of data consists of publishing data on the Web in such a way that they can be connected together and interpreted. It is thus critical to establish links between these data, both for the Web of data and for the Semantic Web that it contributes to feed. We consider here the various techniques which have been developed for that purpose and analyze their commonalities and differences. This provides a general framework that the diverse data linking systems instantiate. From this framework we consider the relation between data linking and ontology matching activities. Although, they can be considered similar at a certain level (they both relate formal entities), they serve different purposes: one acts at the schema level and the other at the instance level. However, they would find a mutual benefit at collaborating. We thus present a scheme under which it is possible for data linking tools to take advantage of ontology alignments. We present the features of expressive alignment languages that allows linking specifications to reuse ontology alignments in a natural way.

Within open, distributed and dynamic environments, agents frequently encounter and communicate with new agents and services that were previously unknown. However, to overcome the ontological heterogeneity which may exist within such environments, agents first need to reach agreement over the vocabulary and underlying conceptualisation of the shared domain, that will be used to support their subsequent communication. Whilst there are many existing mechanisms for matching the agents' individual ontologies, some are better suited to certain ontologies or tasks than others, and many are unsuited for use in a real-time, autonomous environment. Agents have to agree on which correspondences between their ontologies are mutually acceptable by both agents. As the rationale behind the preferences of each agent may well be private, one cannot always expect agents to disclose their strategy or rationale for communicating. This prevents the use of a centralised mediator or facilitator which could reconcile the ontological differences. The use of argumentation allows two agents to iteratively explore candidate correspondences within a matching process, through a series of proposals and counter proposals, i.e., arguments. Thus, two agents can reason over the acceptability of these correspondences without explicitly disclosing the rationale for preferring one type of correspondences over another. In this chapter we present an overview of the approaches for alignment agreement based on argumentation.

The implementation of the automatic services for evaluating matching tools follows an iterative model. The aim is to provide a way for continuously analysing and improving these services. In this deliverable, we report the first iteration of this process, i.e., current implementation status of the services. In this first iteration, we have extended our previous implementation in order to migrate our own services to the SEALS components, which have been finished since the end of the first evaluation campaign.

Measuring similarity between ontologies can be very useful for different purposes, e.g., finding an ontology to replace another, or finding an ontology in which queries can be translated. Classical measures compute similarities or distances in an ontology space by directly comparing the content of ontologies. We introduce a new family of ontology measures computed in an alignment space: they evaluate the similarity between two ontologies with regard to the available alignments between them. We define two sets of such measures relying on the existence of a path between ontologies or on the ontology entities that are preserved by the alignments. The former accounts for known relations between ontologies, while the latter reflects the possibility to perform actions such as instance import or query translation. All these measures have been implemented in the OntoSim library, that has been used in experiments which showed that entity preserving measures are comparable to the best ontology space measures. Moreover, they showed a robust behaviour with respect to the alteration of the alignment space.

Ontology matching consists of finding correspondences between entities of two ontologies. OAEI campaigns aim at comparing ontology matching systems on precisely defined test cases. Test cases can use ontologies of different nature (from simple directories to expressive OWL ontologies) and use different modalities, e.g., blind evaluation, open evaluation, consensus. OAEI-2010 builds over previous campaigns by having 4 tracks with 6 test cases followed by 15 participants. This year, the OAEI campaign introduces a new evaluation modality in association with the SEALS project. A subset of OAEI test cases is included in this new modality which provides more automation to the evaluation and more direct feedback to the participants. This paper is an overall presentation of the OAEI 2010 campaign.

Evaluation of semantic web technologies at large scale, including ontology matching, is an important topic of semantic web research. This paper presents a web-based evaluation service for automatically executing the evaluation of ontology matching systems. This service is based on the use of a web service interface wrapping the functionality of a matching tool to be evaluated and allows developers to launch evaluations of their tool at any time on their own. Furthermore, the service can be used to visualise and manipulate the evaluation results. The approach allows the execution of the tool on the machine of the tool developer without the need for a runtime environment.

Matching ontologies can be achieved by first recontextualising ontologies and then using this context information in order to deduce the relations between ontology entities. In Deliverable 3.3.1, we introduced the Scarlet system which uses ontologies on the web as context for matching ontologies. In this deliverable, we push this further by systematising the parameterisation of Scarlet. We develop a framework for expressing context-based matching parameters and implement most of them within Scarlet. This allows for evaluating the impact of each of these parameters on the actual results of context-based matching.

In this deliverable we describe a SEALS evaluation service for ontology matching that is based on the use of a web service interface to be implemented by the tool vendor. Following this approach we can offer an evaluation service before many components of the SEALS platform have been finished. We describe both the system architecture of the evaluation service from a general point of view as well as the specific components and their relation to the modules of the SEALS platform.

Semantic similarity aims at establishing resemblance by interpreting the meaning of the objects being compared. The Semantic Web can benefit from semantic similarity in several ways: ontology alignment and merging, automatic ontology construction, semantic-search, to cite a few. Current approaches mostly focus on computing similarity between nouns. The aim of this paper is to define a framework to compute semantic similarity even for other grammar categories such as verbs, adverbs and adjectives. The framework has been implemented on top of WordNet. Extensive experiments confirmed the suitability of this approach in the task of solving English tests.

Semantic similarity and relatedness measures between ontology concepts are useful in many research areas. While similarity only considers subsumption relations to assess how two objects are alike, relatedness takes into account a broader range of relations (e.g., part-of). In this paper, we present a framework, which maps the feature-based model of similarity into the information theoretic domain. A new way of computing IC values directly from an ontology structure is also introduced. This new model, called Extended Information Content (eIC) takes into account the whole set of semantic relations defined in an ontology. The proposed framework enables to rewrite existing similarity measures that can be augmented to compute semantic relatedness. Upon this framework, a new measure called FaITH (Feature and Information THeoretic) has been devised. Extensive experimental evaluations confirmed the suitability of the framework.

Le web des données consiste à publier des données sur le web de telle sorte qu'elles puissent être interprétées et connectées entre elles. Il est donc vital d'établir les liens entre ces données à la fois pour le web des données et pour le web sémantique qu'il contribue à nourrir. Nous proposons un cadre général dans lequel s'inscrivent les différentes techniques utilisées pour établir ces liens et nous montrons comment elles s'y insèrent. Nous proposons ensuite une architecture permettant d'associer les différents systèmes de liage de données et de les faire collaborer avec les systèmes développés pour la mise en correspondance d'ontologies qui présente de nombreux points communs avec la découverte de liens.

Ontology alignment agreement aims at overcoming the problem that arises when different parties need to conciliate their conflicting views on ontology alignments. Argumentation has been applied as a way for supporting the creation and exchange of arguments, followed by the reasoning on their acceptability. Here we use arguments as positions that support or reject correspondences. Applying only argumentation to select correspondences may lead to alignments which relates ontologies in an inconsistent way. In order to address this problem, we define maximal consistent sub-consolidations which generate consistent and argumentation-grounded alignments. We propose a strategy for computing them involving both argumentation and logical inconsistency detection. It removes correspondences that introduce inconsistencies into the resulting alignment and allows for maintaining the consistency within an argumentation system. We present experiments comparing the different approaches. The (partial) experiments suggest that applying consistency checking and argumentation independently significantly improves results, while using them together does not bring so much. The features of consistency checking and argumentation leading to this result are analysed.

This paper reports the first effort into integrating OAEI and SEALS evaluation campaigns. The SEALS project aims at providing standardized resources (software components, data sets, etc.) for automatically executing evaluations of typical semantic web tools, including ontology matching tools. A first version of the software infrastructure is based on the use of a web service interface wrapping the functionality of a matching tool to be evaluated. In this setting, the evaluation results can visualized and manipulated immediately in a direct feedback cycle. We describe how parts of the OAEI 2010 evaluation campaign have been integrated into this software infrastructure. In particular, we discuss technical and organizational aspects related to the use of the new technology for both participants and organizers of the OAEI.

This deliverable reports the results of the first SEALS evaluation campaign, which has been carried out in coordination with the OAEI 2010 campaign. A subset of the OAEI tracks has been included in a new modality, the SEALS modality. From the participant's point of view, the main innovation is the use of a web-based interface for launching evaluations. 13 systems, out of 15 for all tracks, have participated in some of the three SEALS tracks. We report the preliminary results of these systems for each SEALS track and discuss the main lesson learned from to the use of the new technology for both participants and organizers of the OAEI.

Ontology modularization could help overcome the problem of defining a fragment of an existing ontology to be reused, in order to enable ontology developers to include only those concepts and relations that are relevant for the application they are modeling an ontology for. This paper presents a concrete tool that incorporates an approach to ontology modularization that inherits some of the main principles from object-oriented softwareengineering, which are encapsulation and information hiding. What motivated us to track that direction is the fact that most ontology approaches to the problem focus on linking ontologies rather than building modules that can encapsulate foreign parts of ontologies (or other modules) that can be managed more easily.

This demo presents the Cupboard online system for sharing and reusing ontologies linked together with alignments, and that are attached to rich metadata and reviews.

Relating ontologies is very important for many ontology-based applications and more important in open environments like the semantic web. The relations between ontology entities can be obtained by ontology matching and represented as alignments. Hence, alignments must be taken into account in ontology management. This chapter establishes the requirements for alignment management. After a brief introduction to matching and alignments, we justify the consideration of alignments as independent entities and provide the life cycle of alignments. We describe the important functions of editing, managing and exploiting alignments and illustrate them with existing components.

Ontology matching consists of finding correspondences between ontology entities. OAEI campaigns aim at comparing ontology matching systems on precisely defined test cases. Test cases can use ontologies of different nature (from expressive OWL ontologies to simple directories) and use different modalities, e.g., blind evaluation, open evaluation, consensus. OAEI-2009 builds over previous campaigns by having 5 tracks with 11 test cases followed by 16 participants. This paper is an overall presentation of the OAEI 2009 campaign.

This deliverable presents a systematic procedure for evaluating ontology matching systems and algorithms, in the context of SEALS project. It describes the criteria and metrics on which the evaluations will be carried out and the characteristics of the test data to be used, as well as the evaluation target, which includes the systems generating the alignments for evaluation.

During the last three years there has been growing interest and consequently active research on ontology modularization. This paper presents a concrete tool that incorporates an approach to ontology modularization that inherits some of the main principles from object-oriented software engineering, which are encapsulation and information hiding. What motivated us to track that direction is the fact that most ontology approaches to the problem focus on linking ontologies (or modules) rather than building modules that can encapsulate foreign parts of ontologies (or other modules) that can be managed more easily.

There are many reasons for measuring a distance between ontologies. In particular, it is useful to know quickly if two ontologies are close or remote before deciding to match them. To that extent, a distance between ontologies must be quickly computable. We present constraints applying to such measures and several possible ontology distances. Then we evaluate experimentally some of them in order to assess their accuracy and speed.

Ontology matching consists of finding correspondences between ontology entities. OAEI campaigns aim at comparing ontology matching systems on precisely defined test sets. Test sets can use ontologies of different nature (from expressive OWL ontologies to simple directories) and use different modalities, e.g., blind evaluation, open evaluation, consensus. OAEI-2008 builds over previous campaigns by having 4 tracks with 8 test sets followed by 13 participants. Following the trend of previous years, more participants reach the forefront. The official results of the campaign are those published on the OAEI web site.

The evaluation of ontology matching algorithms mainly consists of comparing a produced alignment with a reference one. Usually, this evaluation relies on the classical precision and recall measures. This evaluation model is not satisfactory since it does not take into account neither the closeness of correspondances, nor the semantics of alignments. A first solution consists of generalizing the precision and recall measures in order to solve the problem of rigidity of classical model. Another solution aims at taking advantage of the semantic of alignments in the evaluation. In this paper, we show and analyze the limits of these evaluation models. Given that measures values depend on the syntactic form of the alignment, we first propose an normalization of alignment. Then, we propose two new sets of evaluation measures. The first one is a semantic extension of relaxed precision and recall. The second one consists of bounding the alignment space to make ideal semantic precision and recall applicable.

L'alignement d'ontologies met en évidence les relations sémantiques entre les entités de deux ontologies à confronter. L'outil de choix pour l'alignement est une mesure de similarité sur les couples d'entités. Certaines méthodes d'alignement performantes font dépendre la similarité d'un couple de celles des couples voisins. La circularité dans les définitions résultantes est traitée par le calcul itératif d'un point fixe. Nous proposons un cadre unificateur, appelé alignement dirigé par la structure, qui permet de décrire ces méthodes en dépit de divergences d'ordre technique. Celui-ci combine l'appariement de graphes et le calcul matriciel. Nous présentons son application à la ré-implémentation de l'algorithme OLA, baptisée OLA2.

Il y a plusieurs raisons pour lesquelles il est utile de mesurer une distance entre ontologies. En particulier, il est important de savoir rapidement si deux ontologies sont proches où éloignées afin de déterminer s'il est utile de les aligner ou non. Dans cette perspective, une distance entre ontologies doit pouvoir se calculer rapidement. Nous présentons les contraintes qui pèsent sur de telles mesures et nous explorons diverses manières d'établir de telles distances. Des mesures peuvent être fondées sur les ontologies elles-même, en particulier sur leurs caractéristiques terminologiques, structurelles, extensionnelles ou sémantiques; elles peuvent aussi être fondées sur des alignements préalables, en particulier sur l'existence ou la qualité de tels alignments. Comme on peut s'y attendre, il n'existe pas de distance possédant toutes les qualités désirées, mais une batterie de techniques qui méritent d'être expérimentées.

Pervasive computing aims at providing services for human beings that interact with their environment, encompassing objects and humans who reside in it. Applications must be able to take into account the context in which users evolve, e.g., physical location, social or hierarchical position, current tasks as well as related information. These applications have to deal with the dynamic integration in the environment of new, and sometimes unexpected, elements (users or devices). In turn, the environment has to provide context information to newly designed applications. We describe an architecture in which context information is distributed in the environment and context managers use semantic web technologies in order to identify and characterize available resources. The components in the environment maintain their own context expressed in RDF and described through OWL ontologies. They may communicate this information to other components, obeying a simple protocol for identifying them and determining the information they are capable to provide. We show how this architecture allows the introduction of new components and new applications without interrupting what is working. In particular, the openness of ontology description languages makes possible the extension of context descriptions and ontology matching helps dealing with independently developed ontologies.

Solving problems raised by heterogeneous ontologies can be achieved by matching the ontologies and processing the resulting alignments. This is typical of data mediation in which the data must be translated from one knowledge source to another. We propose to solve the data translation problem, i.e. the processing part, using the SPARQL query language. Indeed, such a language is particularly adequate for extracting data from one ontology and, through its CONSTRUCT statement, for generating new data. We present examples of such transformations, but we also present a set of example correspondences illustrating the needs for particular representation constructs, such as aggregates, value-generating built-in functions and paths, which are missing from SPARQL. Hence, we advocate the use of two SPARQL extensions providing these missing features.

Correspondences in ontology alignments relate two ontology entities with a relation. Typical relations are equivalence or subsumption. However, different systems may need different kinds of relations. We propose to use the concepts of algebra of relations in order to express the relations between ontology entities in a general way. We show the benefits in doing so in expressing disjunctive relations, merging alignments in different ways, amalgamating alignments with relations of different granularity, and composing alignments.

This deliverable describes the integration of the OntoLight matcher within the Alignment server and the NeOn toolkit. This integration uses a web service connection from the Alignment server to an OntoLight web service interface.

This deliverable presents the software support provided by the NeOn toolkit for matching ontologies, and in particular, recontextualise them. This support comes through the NeOn Alignment plug-in which integrates the Alignment API and offers access to Alignment servers in the NeOn toolkit. We present the NeOn Alignment plug-in as well as several enhancements of the Alignment server: the integration of three matching methods developed within NeOn, i.e., Semantic Mapper, OLA and Scarlet, as well as theconnection of Alignment servers with Oyster.

Aligning ontologies is a crucial and tedious task. Matching algorithms and tools provide support to facilitate the task of the user in defining correspondences between ontologies entities. However, automatic matching is actually limited to the detection of simple one to one correspondences to be further refined by the user. We introduce in this paper Correspondence Patterns as a tool to assist the design of ontology alignments. Based on existing research on patterns in the fields of software and ontology engineering, we define a pattern template and use it to develop a correspondence patterns library. This library is published in RDF following the Alignment Ontology vocabulary.

This paper aims at analyzing the key trends and challenges of the ontology matching field. The main motivation behind this work is the fact that despite many component matching solutions that have been developed so far, there is no integrated solution that is a clear success, which is robust enough to be the basis for future development, and which is usable by non expert users. In this paper we first provide the basics of ontology matching with the help of examples. Then, we present general trends of the field and discuss ten challenges for ontology matching, thereby aiming to direct research into the critical path and to facilitate progress of the field.

Similarity has become a classical tool for ontology confrontation motivated by alignment, mapping or merging purposes. In the definition of an ontology-based measure one has the choice between covering a single facet (e.g., URIs, labels, instances of an entity, etc.), covering all of the facets or just a subset thereof. In our matching tool, OLA, we had opted for an integrated approach towards similarity, i.e., calculation of a unique score for all candidate pairs based on an aggregation of all facet-wise comparison results. Such a choice further requires effective means for the establishment of importance ratios for facets, or weights, as well as for extracting an alignment out of the ultimate similarity matrix. In previous editions of the competition OLA has relied on a graph representation of the ontologies to align, OL-graphs, that reflected faithfully the syntactic structure of the OWL descriptions. A pair of OL-graphs was exploited to form and solve a system of equations whose approximate solutions were taken as the similarity scores. OLA2 is a new version of OLA which comprises a less integrated yet more homogeneous graph representation that allows similarity to be expressed as graph matching and further computed through matrix multiplying. Although OLA2 lacks key optimization tools from the previous one, while a semantic grounding in the form of WORDNET engine is missing, its results in the competition, at least for the benchmark test suite, are perceivably better.

In order to evaluate ontology matching algorithms it is necessary to confront them with test ontologies and to compare the results with some reference. The most prominent comparison criteria are precision and recall originating from information retrieval. Precision and recall are thought of as some degree of correction and completeness of results. However, when the objects to compare are semantically defined, like ontologies and alignments, it can happen that a fully correct alignment has low precision. This is due to the restricted set-theoretic foundation of these measures. Drawing on previous syntactic generalizations of precision and recall, semantically justified measures that satisfy maximal precision and maximal recall for correct and complete alignments is proposed. These new measures are compatible with classical precision and recall and can be computed.

This deliverable provides the description of an alignment language which is both expressive and independent from ontology languages. It defines the language through its abstract syntax and semantics depending on ontology language semantics. It then describes two concrete syntax: an exchange syntax in RDF/XML and a surface syntax for human consumption. Finally, it presents the current implementation of this expressive language within the Alignment API taking advantage of the OMWG implementation.

Ontology engineering on the web requires a well-defined ontology module system that allows sharing knowledge. This involves declaring modules that expose their content through an interface which hides the way concepts are modeled. We provide a straightforward syntax for such modules which is mainly based on ontology alignments. We show how to adapt a generic semantics of alignments so that it accounts for the hiding of non-exported elements, but honor the semantics of the encapsulated ontologies. The generality of this framework allows modules to be reused within different contexts built upon various logical formalisms.

We present the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative 2007 campaign as well as its results. The OAEI campaign aims at comparing ontology matching systems on precisely defined test sets. OAEI-2007 builds over previous campaigns by having 4 tracks with 7 test sets followed by 17 participants. This is a major increase in the number of participants compared to the previous years. Also, the evaluation results demonstrate that more participants are at the forefront. The final and official results of the campaign are those published on the OAEI web site.

Computer manipulated social networks are usually built from the explicit assertion by users that they have some relation with other users or by the implicit evidence of such relations (e.g., co-authoring). However, since the goal of social network analysis is to help users to take advantage of these networks, it would be convenient to take more information into account. We introduce a three-layered model which involves the network between people (social network), the network between the ontologies they use (ontology network) and a network between concepts occurring in these ontologies. We explain how relationships in one network can be extracted from relationships in another one based on analysis techniques relying on this network specificity. For instance, similarity in the ontology network can be extracted from a similarity measure on the concept network. We illustrate the use of these tools for the emergence of consensus ontologies in the context of semantic peer-to-peer systems.

In order to support semantic interoperation in open environments, where agents can dynamically join or leave and no prior assumption can be made on the ontologies to align, the different agents involved need to agree on the semantics of the terms used during the interoperation. Reaching this agreement can only come through some sort of negotiation process. Indeed, agents will differ in the domain ontologies they commit to; and their perception of the world, and hence the choice of vocabulary used to represent concepts. We propose an approach for supporting the creation and exchange of different arguments, that support or reject possible correspondences. Each agent can decide, according to its preferences, whether to accept or refuse a candidate correspondence. The proposed framework considers arguments and propositions that are specific to the matching task and are based on the ontology semantics. This argumentation framework relies on a formal argument manipulation schema and on an encoding of the agents' preferences between particular kinds of arguments.

Dealing with heterogeneity requires finding correspondences between ontologies and using these correspondences for performing some action such as merging ontologies, transforming ontologies, translating data, mediating queries and reasoning with aligned ontologies. This deliverable considers this problem through the introduction of an alignment life cycle which also identifies the need for manipulating, storing and sharing the alignments before processing them. In particular, we also consider support for run time and design time alignment processing.

L'informatique pervasive a pour but d'offrir des services fondés sur la possibilité pour les humains d'interagir avec leur environnement (y compris les objets et autres humains qui l'occupent). Les applications dans ce domaine doivent être capable de considérer le contexte dans lequel les utilisateurs évoluent (qu'il s'agisse de leur localisation physique, leur position sociale ou hiérarchique ou leurs tâches courantes ainsi que des informations qui y sont liées). Ces applications doivent gérer dynamiquement l'irruption dans la scène de nouveaux éléments (utilisateurs ou appareils) même inconnus et produire de l'information de contexte utile à des applications non envisagées. Après avoir examiné les différents modèles de contexte étudiés en intelligence artificielle et en informatique pervasive, nous montrons en quoi ils ne répondent pas directement à ces besoins dynamiques. Nous décrivons une architecture dans laquelle les informations de contexte sont distribuées dans l'environnement et où les gestionnaires de contexte utilisent les technologies développées pour le web sémantique afin d'identifier et de caractériser les ressources disponibles. L'information de contexte est exprimée en RDF et décrite par des ontologies en OWL. Les dispositifs de l'environnement maintiennent leur propre contexte et peuvent communiquer cette information à d'autres dispositifs. Ils obéissent à un protocole simple permettant de les identifier et de déterminer quelles informations ils sont susceptibles d'apporter. Nous montrons en quoi une telle architecture permet d'ajouter de nouveaux dispositifs et de nouvelles applications sans interrompre ce qui fonctionne. En particulier, l'ouverture des langages de description d'ontologies permettent d'étendre les descriptions et l'alignement des ontologies permet de considérer des ontologies indépendantes.

In a pervasive computing environment, heterogeneous devices need to communicate in order to provide services adapted to the situation of users. So, they need to assess this situation as their context. We have developed an extensible context model using semantic web technologies and a context information management component that enable the interaction between context information producer devices and context information consumer devices and as well as their insertion in an open environment.

In a pervasive environment, heterogeneous devices need to communicate in order to provide services adapted to users. We have developed an extensible context model using semantic web technologies and a context information management component that enable the interaction between context information producer devices and context information consumer devices and as well as their insertion in an open environment.

We present the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative 2006 campaign as well as its results. The OAEI campaign aims at comparing ontology matching systems on precisely defined test sets. OAEI-2006 built over previous campaigns by having 6 tracks followed by 10 participants. It shows clear improvements over previous results. The final and official results of the campaign are those published on the OAEI web site.

Choosing a matching tool adapted to a particular application can be very difficult. This document analyses the choice criteria from the application viewpoint and their fulfilment by the candidate matching systems. Different methods (paper analysis, questionnaire, empirical evaluation and decision making techniques) are used for assessing them. We evaluate how these criteria can be combined and how they can help particular users to decide in favour or against some matching system.

We have designed a three-layered model which involves the networks between people, the ontologies they use, and the concepts occurring in these ontologies. We propose how relationships in one network can be extracted from relationships in another one based on analysis techniques relying on this network specificity. For instance, similarity in the ontology layer can be extracted from a similarity measure on the concept layer.

We have been focusing on three-layered socialized semantic space, consisting of social, ontology, and concept layers. In this paper, we propose a new measurement of semantic centrality of people, meaning the power of semantic bridging, on this architecture. Thereby, the consensual ontologies are discovered by semantic alignment-based mining process in the ontology and concept layer. It is represented as the maximal semantic substructures among personal ontologies of semantically interlinked community. Finally, we have shown an example of semantic centrality applied to resource annotation on social network, and discussed our assumptions used in formulation of this measurement.

When agents communicate they do not necessarily use the same vocabulary or ontology. For them to interact successfully they must find correspondences between the terms used in their ontologies. While many proposals for matching two agent ontologies have been presented in the literature, the resulting alignment may not be satisfactory to both agents and can become the object of further negotiation between them. This paper describes our work constructing a formal framework for reaching agents' consensus on the terminology they use to communicate. In order to accomplish this, we adapt argument-based negotiation used in multi-agent systems to deal specifically with arguments that support or oppose candidate correspondences between ontologies. Each agent can decide according to its interests whether to accept or refuse the candidate correspondence. The proposed framework considers arguments and propositions that are specific to the matching task and related to the ontology semantics. This argumentation framework relies on a formal argument manipulation schema and on an encoding of the agents preferences between particular kinds of arguments. The former does not vary between agents, whereas the latter depends on the interests of each agent. Therefore, this work distinguishes clearly between the alignment rationales valid for all agents and those specific to a particular agent.

When agents communicate, they do not necessarily use the same vocabulary or ontology. For them to interact successfully, they must find correspondences (mappings) between the terms used in their respective ontologies. While many proposals for matching two agent ontologies have been presented in the literature, the resulting alignment may not be satisfactory to both agents, and thus may necessitate additional negotiation to identify a mutually agreeable set of correspondences. We propose an approach for supporting the creation and exchange of different arguments, that support or reject possible correspondences. Each agent can decide, according to its preferences, whether to accept or refuse a candidate correspondence. The proposed framework considers arguments and propositions that are specific to the matching task and are based on the ontology semantics. This argumentation framework relies on a formal argument manipulation schema and on an encoding of the agents' preferences between particular kinds of arguments. Whilst the former does not vary between agents, the latter depends on the interests of each agent. Thus, this approach distinguishes clearly between alignment rationales which are valid for all agents and those specific to a particular agent.

In open and dynamic environments, agents will usually differ in the domain ontologies they commit to and their perception of the world. The availability of Alignment Services, that are able to provide correspondences between two ontologies, is only a partial solution to achieving interoperability between agents, because any given candidate set of alignments is only suitable in certain contexts. For a given context, different agents might have different and inconsistent perspectives that reflect their differing interests and preferences on the acceptability of candidate mappings, each of which may be rationally acceptable. In this paper we introduce an argumentation-based negotiation framework over the terminology they use in order to communicate. This argumentation framework relies on a formal argument manipulation schema and on an encoding of the agents preferences between particular kinds of arguments. The former does not vary between agents, whereas the latter depends on the interests of each agent. Thus, this approach distinguishes clearly between the alignment rationales valid for all agents and those specific to a particular agent.

One of the main open issues in the ontology matching field is the selection of a current relevant and suitable matcher. The suitability of the given approaches is determined w.r.t the requirements of the application and with careful consideration of a number of factors. This work proposes a multilevel characteristic for matching approaches, which provides a basis for the comparison of different matchers and is used in the decision making process for selection the most appropriate algorithm.

An ontology alignment is the expression of relations between different ontologies. In order to view alignments independently from the language expressing ontologies and from the techniques used for finding the alignments, we use a category-theoretical model in which ontologies are the objects. We introduce a categorical structure, called V-alignment, made of a pair of morphisms with a common domain having the ontologies as codomain. This structure serves to design an algebra that describes formally what are ontology merging, alignment composition, union and intersection using categorical constructions. This enables combining alignments of various provenance. Although the desirable properties of this algebra make such abstract manipulation of V-alignments very simple, it is practically not well fitted for expressing complex alignments: expressing subsumption between entities of two different ontologies demands the definition of non-standard categories of ontologies. We consider two approaches to solve this problem. The first one extends the notion of V-alignments to a more complex structure called W-alignments: a formalization of alignments relying on "bridge axioms". The second one relies on an elaborate concrete category of ontologies that offers high expressive power. We show that these two extensions have different advantages that may be exploited in different contexts (viz., merging, composing, joining or meeting): the first one efficiently processes ontology merging thanks to the possible use of categorical institution theory, while the second one benefits from the simplicity of the algebra of V-alignments.

An ontology alignment explicitly describes the relations holding between two ontologies. A system composed of ontologies and alignments interconnecting them is herein called a distributed system. We give three different semantics of a distributed system, that do not interfere with the semantics of ontologies. Their advantages are compared, with respect to allowing consistent merge of ontologies, managing heterogeneity and complying with an alignment composition operation. We show that only the two first variants, which differ from other proposed semantics, can offer a sound composition operation.

In order to evaluate the performance of ontology matching algorithms it is necessary to confront them with test ontologies and to compare the results. The most prominent criteria are precision and recall originating from information retrieval. However, it can happen that an alignment be very close to the expected result and another quite remote from it, and they both share the same precision and recall. This is due to the inability of precision and recall to measure the closeness of the results. To overcome this problem, we present a framework for generalizing precision and recall. This framework is instantiated by three different measures and we show in a motivating example that the proposed measures are prone to solve the problem of rigidity of classical precision and recall.

We observe that the precision and recall measures are not able to discriminate between very bad and slightly out of target alignments. We propose to generalise these measures by determining the distance between the obtained alignment and the expected one. This generalisation is done so that precision and recall results are at least preserved. In addition, the measures keep some tolerance to errors, i.e., accounting for some correspondences that are close to the target instead of out of target.

Many different methods have been designed for aligning ontologies. These methods use such different techniques that they can hardly be compared theoretically. Hence, it is necessary to compare them on common tests. We present two initiatives that led to the definition and the performance of the evaluation of ontology alignments during 2004. We draw lessons from these two experiments and discuss future improvements.

Among the variety of alignment approaches (e.g., using machine learning, subsumption computation, formal concept analysis, etc.) similarity-based ones rely on a quantitative assessment of pair-wise likeness between entities. Our own alignment tool, OLA, features a similarity model rooted in principles such as: completeness on the ontology language features, weighting of different feature contributions and mutual influence between related ontology entities. The resulting similarities are recursively defined hence their values are calculated by a step-wise, fixed-point-bound approximation process. For the OAEI 2005 contest, OLA was provided with an additional mechanism for weight determination that increases the autonomy of the system.

This document presents solutions for agents using different ontologies, to negotiate the meaning of terms used. The described solutions are based on standard agent technologies as well as alignment techniques developed within Knowledge web. They can be applied for other interacting entities such as semantic web services.

This deliverable focusses on the definition of a delivery alignment format for tools producing alignments (mapping tools). It considers the many formats that are currently available for expressing alignments and evaluate them with regard to criteria that such formats would satisfy. It then proposes some improvements in order to produce a format satisfying more needs.

We take a general perspective on alignment in order to develop common theoretical foundations for the subject. The deliverable comprises a comparative study of different mapping languages by means of distributed first-order logic, and a study on category-theoretical modelling of alignment and merging by means of pushout-combinations.

Schema and ontology matching is a critical problem in many application domains, such as semantic web, schema/ontology integration, data warehouses, e-commerce, etc. Many different matching solutions have been proposed so far. In this paper we present a new classification of schema-based matching techniques that builds on the top of state of the art in both schema and ontology matching. Some innovations are in introducing new criteria which are based on (i) general properties of matching techniques, (ii) interpretation of input information, and (iii) the kind of input information. In particular, we distinguish between approximate and exact techniques at schema-level; and syntactic, semantic, and external techniques at element- and structure-level. Based on the classification proposed we overview some of the recent schema/ontology matching systems pointing which part of the solution space they cover. The proposed classification provides a common conceptual basis, and, hence, can be used for comparing different existing schema/ontology matching techniques and systems as well as for designing new ones, taking advantages of state of the art solutions.

This deliverable presents the evaluation campaign carried out in 2005 and the improvement participants to these campaign and others have to their systems. We draw lessons from this work and proposes improvements for future campaigns.

Interoperability of heterogeneous systems on the Web will be admittedly achieved through an agreement between the underlying ontologies. However, the richer the ontology description language, the more complex the agreement process, and hence the more sophisticated the required tools. Among current ontology alignment paradigms, similarity-based approaches are both powerful and flexible enough for aligning ontologies expressed in languages like OWL. We define a universal measure for comparing the entities of two ontologies that is based on a simple and homogeneous comparison principle: Similarity depends on the type of entity and involves all the features that make its definition (such as superclasses, properties, instances, etc.). One-to-many relationships and circularity in entity descriptions constitute the key difficulties in this context: These are dealt with through local matching of entity sets and iterative computation of recursively dependent similarities, respectively.

Using ontologies is the standard way to achieve interoperability of heterogeneous systems within the Semantic web. However, as the ontologies underlying two systems are not necessarily compatible, they may in turn need to be aligned. Similarity-based approaches to alignment seems to be both powerful and flexible enough to match the expressive power of languages like OWL. We present an alignment tool that follows the similarity-based paradigm, called OLA. OLA relies on a universal measure for comparing the entities of two ontologies that combines in a homogeneous way the entire amount of knowledge used in entity descriptions. The measure is computed by an iterative fixed-point-bound process producing subsequent approximations of the target solution. The alignments produce by OLA on the contest ontology pairs and the way they relate to the expected alignments is discussed and some preliminary conclusions about the relevance of the similarity-based approach as well as about the experimental settings of the contest are drawn.

Ontologies are seen as the solution to data heterogeneity on the web. However, the available ontologies are themselves source of heterogeneity. This can be overcome by aligning ontologies, or finding the correspondence between their components. These alignments deserve to be treated as objects: they can be referenced on the web as such, be completed by an algorithm that improves a particular alignment, be compared with other alignments and be transformed into a set of axioms or a translation program. We present here a format for expressing alignments in RDF, so that they can be published on the web. Then we propose an implementation of this format as an Alignment API, which can be seen as an extension of the OWL API and shares some design goals with it. We show how this API can be used for effectively aligning ontologies and completing partial alignments, thresholding alignments or generating axioms and transformations.

This document considers potential strategies for evaluating ontology alignment algorithms. It identifies various goals for such an evaluation. In the context of the Knowledge web network of excellence, the most important objective is the improvement of existing methods. We examine general evaluation strategies as well as efforts that have already been undergone in the specific field of ontology alignment. We then put forward some methodological and practical guidelines for running such an evaluation.

Integrating heterogeneous resources of the web will require finding agreement between the underlying ontologies. A variety of methods from the literature may be used for this task, basically they perform pair-wise comparison of entities from each of the ontologies and select the most similar pairs. We introduce a similarity measure that takes advantage of most of the features of OWL-Lite ontologies and integrates many ontology comparison techniques in a common framework. Moreover, we put forth a computation technique to deal with one-to-many relations and circularities in the similarity definitions.