Reaching Agreement over Ontology Alignments

  • Loredana Laera
  • Valentina Tamma
  • Jérôme Euzenat
  • Trevor Bench-Capon
  • Terry Payne
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4273)


When agents communicate, they do not necessarily use the same vocabulary or ontology. For them to interact successfully, they must find correspondences (mappings) between the terms used in their respective ontologies. While many proposals for matching two agent ontologies have been presented in the literature, the resulting alignment may not be satisfactory to both agents, and thus may necessitate additional negotiation to identify a mutually agreeable set of correspondences.

We propose an approach for supporting the creation and exchange of different arguments, that support or reject possible correspondences. Each agent can decide, according to its preferences, whether to accept or refuse a candidate correspondence. The proposed framework considers arguments and propositions that are specific to the matching task and are based on the ontology semantics. This argumentation framework relies on a formal argument manipulation schema and on an encoding of the agents’ preferences between particular kinds of arguments. Whilst the former does not vary between agents, the latter depends on the interests of each agent. Thus, this approach distinguishes clearly between alignment rationales which are valid for all agents and those specific to a particular agent.


Candidate Mapping Argumentation Framework External Structural Ontology Match Attack Relation 
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.


  1. 1.
    Bailin, S.C., Truszkowski, W.: Ontology Negotiation: How Agents Can Really Get to Know Each Other. In: Truszkowski, W., Hinchey, M., Rouff, C.A. (eds.) WRAC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2564. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bench-Capon, T.: Value based argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of Non Monotonic Reasoning, pp. 444–453 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bench-Capon, T.: Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-Based Argumentation Frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13, 429–448 (2003)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The Semantic Web. Scientific American 284(5), 34–43 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dhamankar, R., Lee, Y., Doan, A., Halevy, A., Domingos, P.: iMAP: Discovering complex semantic matches between database schemas. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD), pp. 383–394 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Doutre, S., Bench-Capon, T., Dunne, P.E.: Determining Preferences through Argumentation. In: Proceedings of AI*IA 2005, pp. 98–109 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dung, P.: On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-person Games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–358 (1995)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ehrig, M., Staab, S.: QOM – quick ontology mapping. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 683–697. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Euzenat, J.: Alignment infrastructure for ontology mediation and other applications. In: Hepp, M., Polleres, A., van Harmelen, F., Genesereth, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Mediation in Semantic Web Services, pp. 81–95 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Euzenat, J., Valtchev, P.: Similarity-based ontology alignment in OWL-Lite. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2006) (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gruber, T.R.: A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 5(2), 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Laera, L., Tamma, V., Bench-Capon, T., Euzenat, J.: Agent-based Argumentation for Ontology Alignments. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2006) (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S.D., Jennings, N.R., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Sonenberg, L.: Argumentation-based negotiation. The Knowledge Engineering Review 18, 343–375 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shvaiko, P., Euzenat, J.: A survey of schema-based matching approaches. Journal on data semantics 4, 146–171 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shvaiko, P., Giunchiglia, F., Pinheiro da Silva, P., McGuinness, D.: Web Explanations for Semantic Heterogeneity Discovery. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Euzenat, J. (eds.) ESWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3532, pp. 303–317. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R., Noriega, P., Parsons, S.: A Framework for Argumentation-Based Negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Intelligent Agents IV, Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Silva, N., Maio, P., Rocha, J.: An Approach to Ontology Mapping Negotiation. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Integrating Ontologies (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Diggelen, J., Beun, R., Dignum, F., van Eijk, R., Meyer, J.-J.: A decentralized approach for establishing a shared communication vocabulary. In: Proceedings of the AMKN (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Visser, P., Jones, D., Bench-Capon, T., Shave, M.: Assessing Heterogeneity by Classifying Ontology Mismatches. In: Guarino, N. (ed.) Proceedings of the FOIS 1998 (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Loredana Laera
    • 1
  • Valentina Tamma
    • 1
  • Jérôme Euzenat
    • 2
  • Trevor Bench-Capon
    • 1
  • Terry Payne
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolUK
  2. 2.INRIA Rhône-AlpesMontbonnotFrance
  3. 3.Department of Electronics and Computer ScienceUniversity of SouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations