Discovering Ontological Correspondences Through Dialogue

  • Gabrielle Santos
  • Terry R. Payne
  • Valentina Tamma
  • Floriana Grasso
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10024)


Whilst significant attention has been given to centralised approaches for aligning full ontologies, limited attention has been given to the problem of aligning partially exposed ontologies in a decentralised setting. Traditional ontology alignment techniques rely on the full disclosure of the ontological models that find the “best” set of correspondences that map entities from one ontology to another. However, within open and opportunistic environments, such approaches may not always be pragmatic or even acceptable (due to privacy concerns). We present a novel dialogue based negotiation mechanism that supports the strategic agreement over correspondences between agents with limited or no prior knowledge of their opponent’s ontology. This mechanism allows both agents to reach a mutual agreement over an alignment through the selective disclosure of their ontological model, and facilitates rational choices on the grounds of their ontological knowledge and their specific strategies. We formally introduce the dialogue mechanism, and discuss its behaviour, properties and outcomes.


  1. 1.
    Ankolekar, A., et al.: DAML-S: web service description for the semantic web. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, p. 348. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bailin, S.C., Truszkowski, W.: Ontology negotiation: how agents can really get to know each other. In: Truszkowski, W., Hinchey, M., Rouff, C. (eds.) WRAC 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2564, pp. 320–334. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-45173-0_24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cheatham, M., Hitzler, P.: String similarity metrics for ontology alignment. In: Alani, H., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2013, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8219, pp. 294–309. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clark, H.H.: Using Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clark, H.H., Schaefer, E.F.: Contributing to discourse. Cogn. Sci. 13(2), 259–294 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Diggelen, J., Beun, R.J., Dignum, F., van Eijk, R.M., Meyer, J.J.C.: Anemone: an effective minimal ontology negotiation environment. In: Proceedings of the AAMAS 2006, pp. 899–906 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Euzenat, J., Shvaiko, P.: Ontology Matching. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fan, X., Toni, F.: On computing explanations in abstract argumentation. In: ECAI 2014–21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 18–22 August 2014, Prague, Czech Republic - Including Prestigious Applications of Intelligent Systems (PAIS 2014), pp. 1005–1006 (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gale, D., Shapley, L.S.: College admissions and the stability of marriage. Am. Math. Mon. 69(1), 9–15 (1962)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grau, B.C., Dragisic, Z., Eckert, K., Euzenat, J., et al.: Results of the ontology alignment evaluation initiative 2013. In: Proceedings of the 8th ISWC Workshop on Ontology Matching (OM), pp. 61–100 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grau, B.C., Motik, B.: Reasoning over ontologies with hidden content: the import-by-query approach. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 45, 197–255 (2012)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grice, H.P.: Logic and conversation. In: Cole, P., Morgan, J.L. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, pp. 41–58. Academic Press, Cambridge (1975)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gruber, T.R.: Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 43(5–6), 907–928 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hulstijn, J.: Dialogue models for inquiry and transaction. University of Twente (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Payne, T.R., Solimando, A., Tamma, V.: Limiting logical violations in ontology alignment through negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR 2016 (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kuhn, H.W.: The hungarian method for the assignment problem. Nav. Res. Logist. Q. 2(1–2), 83–97 (1955)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Laera, L., Blacoe, I., Tamma, V., Payne, T., Euzenat, J., Bench-Capon, T.: Argumentation over ontology correspondences in MAS. In: Proceedings of the AAMAS 2007, pp. 1285–1292 (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Laera, L., Tamma, V.A.M., Euzenat, J., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Payne, T.R.: Reaching agreement over ontology alignments. In: Cruz, I., Decker, S., Allemang, D., Preist, C., Schwabe, D., Mika, P., Uschold, M., Aroyo, L.M. (eds.) ISWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4273, pp. 371–384. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Melnik, S., Garcia-Molina, H., Rahm, E.: Similarity flooding: a versatile graph matching algorithm and its application to schema matching. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Data Engineering, San Jose, CA, USA, 26 February - 1 March, 2002, pp. 117–128 (2002).
  20. 20.
    Miller, G.: WordNet: A Lexical Database for English. ACM Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Payne, T.R., Tamma, V.: Negotiating over ontological correspondences with asymmetric and incomplete knowledge. In: Proceedings of the AAMAS 2014, pp. 517–524 (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Searle, J.R.: Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, vol. 626. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shvaiko, P., Euzenat, J.: Ontology matching: state of the art and future challenges. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 25(1), 158–176 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Solimando, A., Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Guerrini, G.: Detecting and correcting conservativity principle violations in ontology-to-ontology mappings. In: Mika, P., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2014, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8797, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Spiliopoulos, V., Vouros, G.A.: Synthesizing ontology alignment methods using the max-sum algorithm. IEEE TKDE 24(5), 940–951 (2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Walton, D., Krabbe, E.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. SUNY Series in Logic and Language. State University of New York Press, Albany (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabrielle Santos
    • 1
  • Terry R. Payne
    • 1
  • Valentina Tamma
    • 1
  • Floriana Grasso
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations