Advertisement

Knowledge and Information Systems

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 353–379 | Cite as

Trust in networks of ontologies and alignments

  • Manuel AtenciaEmail author
  • Mustafa Al-Bakri
  • Marie-Christine Rousset
Regular Paper

Abstract

In this paper, we introduce a mechanism of trust adapted to semantic peer-to-peer networks in which every peer is free to organize its local resources as instances of classes of its own ontology. Peers use their ontologies to query other peers, and alignments between peers’ ontologies make it possible to reformulate queries from one local peer’s vocabulary to another. Alignments are typically the result of manual or (semi)automatic ontology matching. However, resulting alignments may be unsound and/or incomplete, and therefore, query reformulation based on alignments may lead to unsatisfactory answers. Trust can assist peers to select the peers in the network that are better suited to answer their queries. In our model, the trust that a peer has toward another peer depends on a specific query, and it represents the probability that the latter peer will provide a satisfactory answer to the query. In order to compute trust, we perform Bayesian inference that exploits ontologies, alignments and user feedback. We have implemented our method and conducted an evaluation. Experimental results show that trust values converge as more queries are sent and answers received. Furthermore, when query answering is guided by trust, the quality of peers’ answers, measured with precision and recall, is improved.

Keywords

Ontology Populated ontology Alignment Trust  Provenance 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their very useful comments and suggestions. This work has been supported by the Dataring and Qualinca projects sponsored by the French National Research Agency under grant numbers ANR-08-VERS-007 and ANR-2012-CORD-012, respectively. LIG and Inria Grenoble are partners of the LabEx PERSYVAL-Lab (ANR-11-LABX-0025).

References

  1. 1.
    Abdul-Rahman A, Hailes S (2000) Supporting trust in virtual communities. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS-33 2000). IEEE Computer Society, 4–7 January, 2000, Maui, HI, USAGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adams EW (1998) A primer of probability logic. Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications, Stanford, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adjiman P, Chatalic P, Goasdoué F, Rousset MC, Simon L (2006) Distributed reasoning in a peer-to-peer setting: application to the semantic web. J Artif Intell Res 25:269–314zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Al-Bakri M, Atencia M, Rousset M-C (2012) TrustMe, I got what you mean! A trust-based semantic P2P bookmarking system. In: Knowledge engineering and knowledge management—18th international conference, EKAW 2012, Galway City, Ireland, October 8–12, 2012. Proceedings, vol 7603 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 442–445Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Albagli S, Ben-Eliyahu-Zohary R, Shimony SE (2012) Markov network based ontology matching. J Comput Syst Sci 78(1):105–118Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Artz D, Gil Y (2007) A survey of trust in computer science and the semantic web. J Web Semant 5(2):58–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Atencia M, Euzenat J, Pirrò G, Rousset M-C (2011) Alignment-based trust for resource finding in semantic P2P networks. In: The semantic web—ISWC 2011—10th international semantic web conference, Bonn, Germany, October 23–27, 2011, proceedings, part I, vol 7031 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 51–66Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Berners-Lee T, Hall W, Hendler JA, O’Hara K, Shadbolt N, Weitzner DJ (2006) A framework for web science. Found Trends Web Sci 1(1):1–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berners-Lee T, Hendler J, Lassila O (2001) The semantic web. Sci Am 284(5):34–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bolstad WM (2007) Introduction to Bayesian statistics. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brin S, Page L (1998) The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Comput Netw 30(1–7):107–117Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Euzenat J (2008) Algebras of ontology alignment relations. In: The semantic web—ISWC 2008, 7th international semantic web conference, ISWC 2008, Karlsruhe, Germany, October 26–30, 2008. Proceedings, vol 5318 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 387–402Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Euzenat J, Meilicke C, Stuckenschmidt H, Shvaiko P, Trojahn dos Santos C (2011) Ontology alignment evaluation initiative: six years of experience. In: Journal on data semantics XV. Springer, Berlin, pp 158–192Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Euzenat J, Shvaiko P (2007) Ontology matching. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Golbeck J (2006) Combining provenance with trust in social networks for semantic web content filtering. In: Provenance and annotation of data, international provenance and annotation workshop, IPAW 2006, Chicago, IL, USA, May 3–5, 2006, Revised Selected Papers, vol 4145 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 101–108Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jøsang A, Ismail R, Boyd C (2007) A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decis Support Syst 43(2):618–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kalfoglou Y, Schorlemmer M (2003) Ontology mapping: the state of the art. Knowl Eng Rev 18(1):1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liu G, Wang Y, Orgun MA (2011) Trust transitivity in complex social networks. In: Proceedings of the twenty-fifth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, AAAI 2011, San Francisco, California, USA, August 7–11, 2011. AAAI PressGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McCann R, Shen W, Doan A (2008) Matching schemas in online communities: A Web 2.0 approach. In: Proceedings of the 24th international conference on data engineering, ICDE 2008, April 7–12, 2008, Cancún, México, IEEE, pp 110–119Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mika P (2006) Social networks and the semantic web. PhD thesis. SIKS. the Dutch Graduate School for Information and Knowledge SystemsGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mitra P, Noy NF, Jaiswal AR (2005) OMEN: A probabilistic ontology mapping tool. In: The semantic web—ISWC 2005, 4th international semantic web conference, ISWC 2005, Galway, Ireland, November 6–10, 2005, proceedings, vol 3729 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 537–547Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mui L, Mohtashemi M, Halberstadt A (2002) A computational model of trust and reputation. In: Proceedings of the 35th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS-35 2002), 7–10 January, 2002, Big Island, HI, USA. IEEE Computer SocietyGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Newman MEJ (2000) Models of the small world. J Stat Phys 101(3–4):819–941CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Niepert M, Meilicke C, Stuckenschmidt H (2010) A probabilistic-logical framework for ontology matching. In: Proceedings of the twenty-fourth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, AAAI 2010, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, July 11–15, 2010. AAAI PressGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    O’Hara K, Alani H, Kalfoglou Y, Shadbolt N (2004) Trust strategies for the semantic web. In: Proceedings of the ISWC’04 workshop on trust, security, and reputation on the semantic web, Hiroshima, Japan, November 7, 2004, vol 127 of CEUR workshop proceedings, CEUR-WS.orgGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pereira TPA, Pires CES, Salgado AC (2011) Exploring web semantic knowledge and user feedback to improve ontology matching. In: 2011 Database and expert systems applications, DEXA, international workshops, Toulouse, France, August 29–September 2, 2011. IEEE Computer Society, pp 234–238Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pranata I, Skinner G, Athauda R (2012) A holistic review on trust and reputation management systems for digital environments. Int J Comput Inf Technol 1(1):44–53Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Richardson M, Agrawal R, Domingos P (2003) Trust management for the semantic web. In: The semantic web—ISWC 2003, second international semantic web conference, Sanibel Island, FL, USA, October 20–23, 2003, proceedings, vol 2870 of LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 351–368Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Robinson S (2004) Simulation: the practice of model development and use. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sabater J, Sierra C (2005) Review on computational trust and reputation models. AI Rev 24(1):33–60zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tournaire R, Petit J-M, Rousset M-C, Termier A (2011) Discovery of probabilistic mappings between taxonomies: principles and experiments. In: Journal on data semantics XV. Springer, Berlin, pp 66–101Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manuel Atencia
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    Email author
  • Mustafa Al-Bakri
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Marie-Christine Rousset
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Université Grenoble-AlpesGrenobleFrance
  2. 2.CNRSGrenobleFrance
  3. 3.LIGGrenobleFrance
  4. 4.INRIAGrenobleFrance
  5. 5.INRIA Grenoble Rhône-AlpesSaint Ismier CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations