Towards semantic alignment of heterogeneous structures and its application to digital humanities

Different variants of the notion of ‘alignment’ have been adopted in a range of areas, focusing on homogeneous structures (e.g., text alignment [8], database alignment [1] or ontology alignment [4]) or heterogeneous structures (e.g., annotation of text with on- tologies [3], alignment of dictionaries and ontologies [2], alignments between relational databases and ontologies [9]). These alignment approaches, however, take little account of the alignment of multiple structures. This type of approach is becoming increasingly necessary to manage the growing volume of unstructured information sources available on the Web (encyclopedias such as Wikipedia, social media data, etc.) and LOD knowl- edge bases. In addition, the approaches are mostly developed for the English language. These needs have to be addressed through a global vision of alignment that takes into account a multiplicity of structures in which knowledge can be expressed. This paper seeks a holistic approach to semantic computing and alignment, when considering het- erogeneous structures in which knowledge is represented.FCT CEECIND/01997/2017, UIDB/00057/202

Taking advantage of discursive properties for validating hierarchical semantic relations from parallel enumerative structures

This paper presents an approach for automatically validating candidate hierarchical relations extracted from parallel enumerative structures. It relies on the discursive properties of these structures and on the combination of resources of diéerent nature, a semantic network and a distributional resource. The results show an accuracy of between 0.50 and 0.67, with a gain of 0.11 when combining the two resources

Ontology Mapping for a Legal Question Answering System

Legal information retrieval systems, such question answering, use legal ontologies to represent semantic objects, to associate them with legal documents and to make inferences about them. The ontology mapping process can help users to reuse and compare information from different ontologies. In this paper we present a review on legal ontologies and present an approach to ontology mapping based on argumentation. Individual mappings are computed by specialized agents using different mapping approaches. Next, these agents use argumentation to exchange their local results, in order to agree on the obtained mappings. To each argument is associated a strength, representing how confident an agent is in the similarity of two ontology terms. Based on their preferences and confidence of the arguments, the agents compute their preferred mapping sets. The arguments in such preferred sets are viewed as the set of globally acceptable arguments. This work is part of a question answering system for the legal domain

A Cooperative Approach for Composite Ontology Matching

Ontologies have proven to be an essential element in a range of applications in which knowl-edge plays a key role. Resolving the semantic heterogeneity problem is crucial to allow the interoperability between ontology-based systems. This makes automatic ontology matching, as an anticipated solution to semantic heterogeneity, an important, research issue. Many dif-ferent approaches to the matching problem have emerged from the literature. An important issue of ontology matching is to find effective ways of choosing among many techniques and their variations, and then combining their results. An innovative and promising option is to formalize the combination of matching techniques using agent-based approaches, such as cooperative negotiation and argumentation. In this thesis, the formalization of the on-tology matching problem following an agent-based approach is proposed. Such proposal is evaluated using state-of-the-art data sets. The results show that the consensus obtained by negotiation and argumentation represent intermediary values which are closer to the best matcher. As the best matcher may vary depending on specific differences of multiple data sets, cooperative approaches are an advantage. *** RESUMO - Ontologias são elementos essenciais em sistemas baseados em conhecimento. Resolver o problema de heterogeneidade semântica é fundamental para permitira interoperabilidade entre sistemas baseados em ontologias. Mapeamento automático de ontologias pode ser visto como uma solução para esse problema. Diferentes e complementares abordagens para o problema são propostas na literatura. Um aspecto importante em mapeamento consiste em selecionar o conjunto adequado de abordagens e suas variações, e então combinar seus resultados. Uma opção promissora envolve formalizara combinação de técnicas de ma-peamento usando abordagens baseadas em agentes cooperativos, tais como negociação e argumentação. Nesta tese, a formalização do problema de combinação de técnicas de ma-peamento usando tais abordagens é proposta e avaliada. A avaliação, que envolve conjuntos de testes sugeridos pela comunidade científica, permite concluir que o consenso obtido pela negociação e pela argumentação não é exatamente a melhoria de todos os resultados individuais, mas representa os valores intermediários que são próximo da melhor técnica. Considerando que a melhor técnica pode variar dependendo de diferencas específicas de múltiplas bases de dados, abordagens cooperativas são uma vantagem

A Framework for Multilingual Ontology Mapping

This paper proposes a framework for mapping multilingual Description Logics ontologies. First, the DL source ontology is translated to the target ontology language, using a lexical database or a dictionary, generating a translated ontology. The target and the translated ontologies are then used as input for the mapping process. A DL mapping ontology is generated as result of this process

An Argumentation Framework based on strength for Ontology Mapping

In the field of ontology mapping, using argumentation to combine different mapping approaches is an innovative research area. We had extended the Value-based Argumentation Framework (VAF) in order to represent arguments with confidence degrees, according to the similarity degree between the terms being mapped. The mappings are computed by agents using different mapping approaches. Based on their preferences and confidences, the agents compute their preferred mapping sets. The arguments in such preferred sets are viewed as the set of globally acceptable arguments. In previous work we had used discrete classes to represent the confidence degrees (certainty and uncertainty). In this paper, we propose to use continuous values from the interval [0,1]. Here, confidence is treated as strength. Using a threshold for the strength we can reduce the set of mappings and adjust the values of precision. We evaluate the use of strength against the previous confidence as discrete classes. The results are promising, especially what concerns precision

Explaining Argumentation over Alignment Agreements

International audienceArgumentation frameworks have been used as tools for reconciliating ontology alignments, through a series of proposals and counter-proposals, i.e., arguments. However, argumentation outcomes may not be so obvious to human users. Explaining the reasoning behind the argumentation process may help users to understand its outcome, and influence the user's confidence and acceptance on the results. This paper presents a mechanism for providing explanations on the way agreed alignments are established. Our mechanism is based on tracing each step of the argumentation process. These traces are then interpreted using a set of association rules, built from a decision tree that represents all possible statuses of arguments. From these rules, a multi-level explanation, in natural language, is provided to the users

Zu den Begriffen "Ausdruck" und "Emotion" im gegenwärtigen kompositorischen Denken

Their search for \u27emotionality\u27, \u27expression\u27 and \u27feeling\u27 has led the younger generation of composers to survey all musical material, including that of the past. It was discussed how traditional elements that live on in our emotions and in composition techniques could be adapted. The reactions of the public to the results of this discussion varied from sensitive analysis to abuse, disclosing aesthetic frontiers which have yet to be overcome. In this article, attempts are made to explain a certain aesthetic development. The problematic term \u27progressive\u27 will be extensively discussed. (DIPF/Orig.

Matching Law Ontologies using an Extended Argumentation Framework based on Confidence Degrees

Law information retrieval systems use law ontologies to represent semantic objects, to associate them with law documents and to make inferences about them. A number of law ontologies have been proposed in the literature, what shows the variety of approaches pointing to the need of matching systems. We present a proposal based on argumentation to match law ontologies, as an approach to be considered for this problem. Argumentation is used to combine different techniques for ontology matching. Such approaches are encapsulated by agents that apply individual matching algorithms and cooperate in order to exchange their local results (arguments). Next, based on their preferences and confidence, the agents compute their preferred matching sets. The arguments in such preferred sets are viewed as the set of globally acceptable arguments. We show the applicability of our model matching two legal core ontologies: LKIF and CLO