Summary
(Semi-)automatic mapping — also called (semi-)automatic alignment — of ontologies is a core task to achieve interoperability when two agents or services use different ontologies. In the existing literature, the focus has so far been on improving the quality of mapping results. In Peer-to-Peer systems, however, we frequently encounter the situation where large ontological structures must be mapped onto each other in a few seconds or less in order to achieve practical feasibility of semantic translation between peers.
We here present QOM (acronym for Quick Ontology Mapping), an approach that follows Herb Simon’s model of men, where he argues that human decision making is not aiming at optimality, but at satisfying the decision maker by achieving a sufficient degree of quality. We show that QOM has lower run-time complexity than existing approaches. Then, we show in experiments that this theoretical investigation translates into practical benefits. While QOM gives up some of the possibilities for producing high-quality results in favor of efficiency, our experiments show that this loss of quality is marginal, hence satisficing (=satisfying + sufficient).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Rakesh Agrawal and Ramakrishnan Srikant. On integrating catalogs. In Proceedings of the tenth international conference on World Wide Web, pages 603–612. ACM Press, 2001.
G. Bisson. Why and how to define a similarity measure for object based representation systems. Towards Very Large Knowledge Bases, pages 236–246, 1995.
M. Boddy. Anytime problem solving using dynamic programming. In Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 738–743, Anaheim, California, 1991. Shaker Verlag.
T. Cox and M. Cox. Multidimensional Scaling. Chapman and Hall, 1994.
H. Do, S. Melnik, and E. Rahm. Comparison of schema matching evaluations. In Proceedings of the second int. workshop on Web Databases (German Informatics Society), 2002.
A. Doan, P. Domingos, and A. Halevy. Learning to match the schemas of data sources: A multistrategy approach. VLDB Journal, 50:279–301, 2003.
M. Ehrig, P. Haase, F. van Harmelen, R. Siebes, S. Staab, H. Stuckenschmidt, R. Studer, and C. Tempich. The SWAP data and metadata model for semanticsbased peer-to-peer systems. In Proceedings of MATES-2003. First German Conference on Multiagent Technologies, LNAI, Erfurt, Germany, September 22–25 2003. Springer.
M. Ehrig and S. Staab. Quick ontology mapping with QOM. Technical report, University of Karlsruhe, Institute AIFB, 2004. http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/meh/mapping/.
Marc Ehrig and Steffen Staab. QOM-quick ontology mapping. In Frank van Harmelen, Sheila McIlraith, and Dimitris Plexousakis, editors, Proceedings of the Third International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC2004), LNCS, pages 683–696, Hiroshima, Japan, 2004. Springer.
Marc Ehrig and York Sure. Ontology mapping-an integrated approach. In Proceedings of the First European Semantic Web Symposium, ESWS 2004, volume 3053 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 76–91, Heraklion, Greece, May 2004. Springer Verlag.
J. Euzenat and P. Valtchev. An integrative proximity measure for ontology alignment. In Anhai Doan, Alon Halevy, and Natasha Noy, editors, Proceedings of the Semantic Integration Workshop at ISWC-03, 2003.
A. Hotho, S. Staab, and G. Stumme. Ontologies improve text document clustering. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Mining — ICDM-2003. IEEE Press, 2003.
I. V. Levenshtein. Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Cybernetics and Control Theory, 1966.
Alexander Maedche and Steffen Staab. Measuring similarity between ontologies. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Knowledge Acquisition and Management (EKAW). Springer, 2002.
Andrew McCallum, Kamal Nigam, and Lyle H. Ungar. Efficient clustering of high-dimensional data sets with application to reference matching. In Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 169–178, 2000.
Prasenjit Mitra, Gio Wiederhold, and Martin Kersten. A graph-oriented model for articulation of ontology interdependencies. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1777:86+, 2000.
Natalya F. Noy and Mark A. Musen. The PROMPT suite: interactive tools for ontology merging and mapping. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(6):983–1024, 2003.
M. Andrea Rodríguez and Max J. Egenhofer. Determining semantic similarity among entity classes from different ontologies. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2000.
Christoph Tempich and Raphael Volz. Towards a benchmark for semantic web reasoners-an analysis of the DAML ontology library. In York Sure, editor, Evaluation of Ontology-based Tools (EON2003) at Second International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2003), October 2003.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ehrig, M., Staab, S. (2006). Satisficing Ontology Mapping. In: Staab, S., Stuckenschmidt, H. (eds) Semantic Web and Peer-to-Peer. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-28347-1_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-28347-1_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-28346-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-28347-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)