Concept Similarity Measures the Understanding Between Two Agents
When knowledge in each agent is represented by an ontology of concepts and relations, concept communication can not be fulfilled through exchanging concepts (ontology nodes). Instead, agents try to communicate with each other through a common language, which is often ambiguous (such as a natural language), to share knowledge. This ambiguous language, and the different concepts they master, give rise to imperfect understanding among them: How well concepts in ontology OA map to which of OB? Using a method sim that finds the most similar concept in OB corresponding to another concept in OA, we present two algorithms, one to measure the similarity between both concepts; another to gauge du, the degree of understanding that agent A has about B’s ontology. The procedures use word comparison, since no agent can measure du directly. Method sim is also compared with conf, a method that finds the confusion among words in a hierarchy. Examples follow.
KeywordsSimilar Concept Symphony Orchestra Topic Hierarchy Standard Ontology Word Comparison
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Alexandrov, V., Levachkine, S., Guzman-Arenas, A.: Data Dynamical Structures for Image Treatment with Applications to Digital Cartography (book in preparation)Google Scholar
- 4.Gelbukh, A., Sidorov, G., Guzman-Arenas, A.: Document comparison with a weighted topic hierarchy. In: DEXA 1999, 10th International Conference on Database and Expert System applications, Workshop on Document Analysis and Understanding for Document Databases, Florence, Italy, August 30 - September 3, pp. 566–570 (1999)Google Scholar
- 5.Gruber, T.: A translation approach to portable ontologies. Knowledge 7Google Scholar
- 7.Guzman-Arenas, A., Dominguez, C., Olivares, J.: Reacting to unexpected events and communicating in spite of mixed ontologies. In: Coello Coello, C.A., de Albornoz, Á., Sucar, L.E., Battistutti, O.C. (eds.) MICAI 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2313, pp. 377–386. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Holsapple, C.W., Joshi, K.D.: A collaborative approach to ontology design. Comm. ACM 2, 42–47 (2002)Google Scholar
- 11.Huhns, M.N., Singh, M.P.: Global Information Management Via Local Autonomous Agents. In: Huhns, M.N., Singh, M.P. (eds.) Readings in Agents, Morgan Kauffmann Publishers, Inc, San Francisco (1997)Google Scholar
- 12.Kim, H.: Predicting how ontologies for the semantic web will evolve. Comm. ACM 2, 48–54 (2002)Google Scholar
- 14.Montes-y-Gomez, M., Lopez-Lopez, A., Gelbukh, A.: Information Retrieval with Conceptual Graph Matching. LNCS, vol. 1873, pp. 312–321 (2000)Google Scholar
- 15.Olivares, J.: An Interaction Model among Purposeful Agents, Mixed Ontologies and Unexpected Events. Ph. D. Thesis, CIC-IPN. Mexico (In Spanish) Available on line (2002), at http://www.jesusolivares.com/interaction/publica
- 16.Wilks, Y., Slator, B., Guthrie, L.: Electric words. Dictionaries, computers, and meanings. ACL-MIT Press, Cambridge, USA (1996) ISBN 0-262-23182-4 (hc)Google Scholar