skip to main content
10.1145/945645.945671acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesk-capConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Using transformations to improve semantic matching

Published:23 October 2003Publication History

ABSTRACT

Many AI tasks require determining whether two knowledge representations encode the same knowledge. Solving this matching problem is hard because representations may encode the same content but differ substantially in form. Previous approaches to this problem have used either syntactic measures, such as graph edit distance, or semantic knowledge to determine the "distance" between two representations. Although semantic approaches outperform syntactic ones, previous research has focused primarily on the use of taxonomic knowledge. We show that this is not enough because mismatches between representations go largely unaddressed. In this paper, we describe how transformations can augment existing semantic approaches to further improve matching. We also describe the application of our approach to the task of critiquing military Courses of Action and compare its performance to other leading algorithms.

References

  1. K. Barker, J. Blythe, G. Borchardt, V. Chaudhri, P. Clark, P. Cohen, J. Fitzgerald, K. Forbus, Y. Gil, B. Katz, J. Kim, G. King, S. Mishra, C. Morrison, K. Murray, C. Otstott, B. Porter, R. Schrag, T. Uribe, J. Usher, and P. Yeh. A knowledge acquisition tool for course of action analysis. In IAAI, 2003.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. K. Barker, B. Porter, and P. Clark. A library of generic concepts for composing knowledge bases. In K-Cap'01, 2001.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. H. Bunke, X. Jiang, and A. Kandel. On the minimum common supergraph of two graphs. Computing 65, 1, 2000.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. H. Bunke and K. Shearer. A graph distance metric based on the maximal common subgraph. Pattern Recognition Letters, 19, 1998.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. H. Chalupsky. Ontomorph: a translation system for symbolic knowledge. In KR, 2000.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. P. Clark and B. Porter. KM: The knowledge machine. www.cs.utexas.edu/users/mfkb/km.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. P. Clark and B. W. Porter. Building concept representations from reusable components. In AAAI/IAAI, 1997.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. P. Clark, J. Thompson, and B. Porter. Knowledge patterns. In KR, 2000.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. D. Corbett and R. Woodbury. Unification over constraints in conceptual graphs. In ICCS, 1999.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. B. Falkenhainer, K. D. Forbus, and D. Gentner. The structure-mapping engine: Algorithm and examples. Artificial Intelligence, 41(1), 1989.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. K. Forbus and J. Usher. Sketching for knowledge capture: A progress report. In Intelligent User Interfaces, 2002.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. D. Genest and M. Chein. An experiment in document retrieval using conceptual graphs. In ICCS, 1997.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. D. Gentner. Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 1983.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. N. Guarino, C. Masolo, and G. Vetere. Ontoseek: Content-based access to the web. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 14(3), 1999.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. D. B. Lenat and R. Guha. Building Large Knowledge-Based Systems. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1990.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. D. L. McGuinness, R. Fikes, J. Rice, and S. Wilder. An environment for merging and testing large ontologies. In KR, 2000.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. B. T. Messmer and H. Bunke. A network based approach to exact and inexact graph matching. Technical Report IAM 93-021, Institut fur Informatik, Universitat Bern, 1993.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. G. W. Mineau. Normalizing conceptual graphs. In P. Eklund, T. Nagle, J. Nagle, L. Gerhotz, and E. Horwood, editors, Current Directions in Conceptual Structure Research, 1992.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. G. W. Mineau. Facilitating the creation of a multiple index on graph-described documents by transforming their descriptions. In CIKM, 1993.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. S. Myaeng. Conceptual graphs as a framework for text retrieval. In P. Eklund, T. Nagle, J. Nagle, L. Gerhotz, and E. Horwood, editors, Current Directions in Conceptual Structure Research, 1992.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. N. F. Noy and M. A. Musen. An algorithm for merging and aligning ontologies: automation and tool support. In AAAI, Workshop on Ontology Management, 1999.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. E. Salvat and M.-L. Mugnier. Sound and complete forward and backward chainingd of graph rules. In ICCS, 1996.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. A. Sanfeliu and K. Fu. A distance measure between attributed relational graphs for pattern recognition. IEEE Trans. on SMC, 13, 1983.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. L. Shapiro and R. Haralick. Structural descriptions and inexact matching. IEEE Trans. on PAMI, 3, 1981.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. J. F. Sowa. Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind and Machine. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1984.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. W. Tsai and K. Fu. Error-correcting isomorphisms of attributed relational graphs for pattern analysis. IEEE Trans. on SMC, 9, 1979.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. M. Willems. Projection and unification for conceptual graphs. In ICCS, 1995.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. W. Woods. Conceptual indexing: A better way to organize knowledge. Technical Report TR-97-61, Sun Microsystems Laboratories, 1997.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. P. Yeh, B. Porter, and K. Barker. Transformation rules for knowledge-based pattern matching. Technical Report UT-AI-TR-03-299, University of Texas at Austin, 2003.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. J. Zhong, H. Zhu, J. Li, and Y. Yu. Conceptual graph matching for semantic search. In ICCS, 2002.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Using transformations to improve semantic matching

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      K-CAP '03: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Knowledge capture
      October 2003
      198 pages
      ISBN:1581135831
      DOI:10.1145/945645

      Copyright © 2003 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 23 October 2003

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate55of198submissions,28%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader