Advertisement

Assessing the Quality of Mappings Between Semantic Resources in Construction

  • Celson Lima
  • Catarina Ferreira da Silva
  • João Paulo Pimentão
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4200)

Abstract

This paper discusses how to map between Semantic Resources (SRs) specifically created to represent knowledge in the Construction Sector and how to measure and assess the quality of such mappings. In particular results from the FUNSIEC project are presented, which investigated the feasibility of establishing semantic mappings among Construction-oriented SRs. The paper points to the next lines of inquiry to extend such work. In FUNSIEC, a ‘Semantic Infrastructure’ was built using SRs that were semantically mapped among them. After quite positive results from FUNSIEC, the obvious questions arose: how good are the mappings? Can we trust them? Can we use them? This paper presents FUNSIEC research (approach, methodology, and results) and the main directions of investigation to support its continuation, which is based on the application of fuzzy logics to qualify the mappings produced.

Keywords

Fuzzy Logic Lexical Entry Construction Sector Semantic Mapping Concept Property 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Barresi, S., Rezgui, Y., Lima, C., Meziane, F.: Architecture to Support Semantic Resources Interoperability. In: Proceedings of the ACM workshop on Interoperability of Heterogeneous Information Systems (IHIS 2005), Germany, pp. 79–82. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lima, C., Ferreira da Silva, C., Sousa, P., Pimentão, J.P., Le-Duc, C.: Interoperability among Semantic Resources in Construction: Is it Feasible? In: CIB-W78 Conference, Dresden, Germany (July 2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy Sets. Information and Control 8, 338–353 (1965)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The Semantic Web: A new form of Web content that is meaningful to computers will unleash a revolution of new possibilities. Scientific American (May 2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Corcho, O., Fernando-Lopez, M., Gomez-Perez, A.: Methodologies, tools and languages for building ontologies. Where is their meeting point? Data and Knowledge Engineering 46, 41–64 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fernandez-Lopez, M.: Overview of methodologies for building ontologies. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI 1999 workshop on ontologies and problem-solving methods (KRR5), Stockholm, August 2 (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lima, C., Storer, G., Zarli, A., Ferreira da Silva, C.: Towards a framework for managing standards-base semantic e-Resources in the European Construction Industry. In: Construction Research Congress 2005. ASCE, Chicago, EUA(vol. & page numbers) (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Benerecetti, M., Bouquet, P., Zanobini, S.: Soundness of Semantic Methods for Schema Matching. In: Bouquet, P., Serafini, L. (eds.) Workshop on Meaning Coordination and Negotiation (MCN 2004) at the 3rd International Semantic Web Conference, Working notes, Hiroshima, Japan, November 8 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Euzenat, J., Le Bach, T., Barrasa, J., Bouquet, P., De Bo, J., Dieng, R., et al.: D2.2.3: State of the art on ontology alignment – Knowledge Web project, realizing the semantic web, IST-2004-507482 Programme of the Commission of the European Communities (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lima, C.P., Fiès, B., Lefrancois, G., Diraby, T.E.: The challenge of using a domain Ontology in KM solutions: the e-COGNOS experience. In: 10TH ISPE 2003, International Conference on Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, Funchal, Portugal, pp. 771–778 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kalfoglou, Y., Schorlemmer, M.: Ontology mapping: the state of the art. The Knowledge Engineering Review 18(1), 1–31 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Noy, N., Musen, M.: Anchor-PROMPT: Using non-local context for semantic matching. In: Proc. IJCAI 2001 workshop on ontology and information sharing, Seattle (WA US), pp. 63–70 (2001), http://sunsite.informatik.rwthaachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-47/
  13. 13.
    Xiaomeng, S.: Improving Semantic Interoperability through Analysis of Model Extension. In: Proc. of CAiSE 2003 Doctoral Consortium Velden, Austria (2003), http://www.vf-utwente.nl/~xsu/paper/docConstCRD.pdg
  14. 14.
    Garcia, A.C.B., Kunz, J., Ekstrom, M., Kiviniemi, A.: Building a project ontology with extreme collaboration and virtual design and construction. Advanced Engineering Informatics 18(2), 71–85 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Celson Lima
    • 1
  • Catarina Ferreira da Silva
    • 1
    • 2
  • João Paulo Pimentão
    • 3
  1. 1.CSTB, Centre Scientifique et Technique du BâtimentSophia-AntipolisFrance
  2. 2.LIRIS, Laboratoire d’InfoRmatique en Image et Systèmes d’informationUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1VilleurbanneFrance
  3. 3.Institute for the Development of New TechnologiesUNINOVACaparicaPortugal

Personalised recommendations