Skip to main content

Concept Similarity Measures the Understanding Between Two Agents

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 3136))

Abstract

When knowledge in each agent is represented by an ontology of concepts and relations, concept communication can not be fulfilled through exchanging concepts (ontology nodes). Instead, agents try to communicate with each other through a common language, which is often ambiguous (such as a natural language), to share knowledge. This ambiguous language, and the different concepts they master, give rise to imperfect understanding among them: How well concepts in ontology OA map to which of OB? Using a method sim that finds the most similar concept in OB corresponding to another concept in OA, we present two algorithms, one to measure the similarity between both concepts; another to gauge du, the degree of understanding that agent A has about B’s ontology. The procedures use word comparison, since no agent can measure du directly. Method sim is also compared with conf, a method that finds the confusion among words in a hierarchy. Examples follow.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexandrov, V., Levachkine, S., Guzman-Arenas, A.: Data Dynamical Structures for Image Treatment with Applications to Digital Cartography (book in preparation)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Everett, J., Bobrow, D., et al.: Making ontologies work for resolving redundancies across documents. Comm. ACM 45(2), 55–60 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Forbus, K., Falkenhainer, B., Gentner, D.: The structure mapping engine: algorithms and examples. Artificial Intelligence 41(1), 1–63 (1989)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Gelbukh, A., Sidorov, G., Guzman-Arenas, A.: Document comparison with a weighted topic hierarchy. In: DEXA 1999, 10th International Conference on Database and Expert System applications, Workshop on Document Analysis and Understanding for Document Databases, Florence, Italy, August 30 - September 3, pp. 566–570 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gruber, T.: A translation approach to portable ontologies. Knowledge 7

    Google Scholar 

  6. Guzman-Arenas, A.: Finding the main themes in a Spanish document. Journal Expert Systems with Applications 14(1/2), 139–148 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Guzman-Arenas, A., Dominguez, C., Olivares, J.: Reacting to unexpected events and communicating in spite of mixed ontologies. In: Coello Coello, C.A., de Albornoz, Á., Sucar, L.E., Battistutti, O.C. (eds.) MICAI 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2313, pp. 377–386. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Guzmán-Arenas, A., Olivares-Ceja, J.M.: Finding the Most Similar Concepts in two Different Ontologies. In: Monroy, R., Arroyo-Figueroa, G., Sucar, L.E., Sossa, H. (eds.) MICAI 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2972, pp. 129–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2004) (to appear)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Levachkine, S., Guzmán-Arenas, A.: Hierarchies Measuring Qualitative Variables. In: Gelbukh, A. (ed.) CICLing 2004. LNCS, vol. 2945, pp. 262–274. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Holsapple, C.W., Joshi, K.D.: A collaborative approach to ontology design. Comm. ACM 2, 42–47 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Huhns, M.N., Singh, M.P.: Global Information Management Via Local Autonomous Agents. In: Huhns, M.N., Singh, M.P. (eds.) Readings in Agents, Morgan Kauffmann Publishers, Inc, San Francisco (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kim, H.: Predicting how ontologies for the semantic web will evolve. Comm. ACM 2, 48–54 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lenat, D.B., Guha, R.V., Pittman, K., Pratt, D., Shepherd, M.: Cyc: Toward Programs with Common Sense. Comm. of the ACM 33(9), 30–49 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Montes-y-Gomez, M., Lopez-Lopez, A., Gelbukh, A.: Information Retrieval with Conceptual Graph Matching. LNCS, vol. 1873, pp. 312–321 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Olivares, J.: An Interaction Model among Purposeful Agents, Mixed Ontologies and Unexpected Events. Ph. D. Thesis, CIC-IPN. Mexico (In Spanish) Available on line (2002), at http://www.jesusolivares.com/interaction/publica

  16. Wilks, Y., Slator, B., Guthrie, L.: Electric words. Dictionaries, computers, and meanings. ACL-MIT Press, Cambridge, USA (1996) ISBN 0-262-23182-4 (hc)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Olivares-Ceja, J.M., Guzman-Arenas, A. (2004). Concept Similarity Measures the Understanding Between Two Agents. In: Meziane, F., Métais, E. (eds) Natural Language Processing and Information Systems. NLDB 2004. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3136. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-27779-8_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-27779-8_16

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-22564-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-27779-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics