Reducing the Semantic Heterogeneity of Unstructured P2P Systems: A Contribution Based on a Dissemination Protocol

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7720)


In resource sharing P2P systems with autonomous participants, each peer is free to use the ontology with which it annotates its resources. Semantic heterogeneity occurs when the peers do not use the same ontology. For example, a contributing peer A (e.g. a doctor) may annotate its photos, diagrams, data sets with some ontology of its own, while peer B (e.g. a genetician) uses another one. In order to answer a query issued in the system, peers need to know alignments that state correspondences between entities of two ontologies. Assuming that each peer has some partial initial knowledge of some alignments, we focus on correspondences sharing between the peers as a means to learn additional correspondences. We first provide several measures of semantic heterogeneity that enable to draw a semantic picture of the system and to evaluate the efficiency of protocols independently of query evaluation. We propose CorDis, a gossip-based protocol that disseminates the correspondences that the peers want to share in the system. To overcome the peers’ storage limitations, we propose to consider a history of past queries and to favor the correspondences involving frequently used entities. We study several policies that a peer may adopt in case of inconsistency i.e. when shared correspondences conflict with its own knowledge. We conduct experiments with a set of 93 ontologies actively used in the biomedical domain. We evaluate the CorDis protocol with respect to the proposed measures of semantic heterogeneity and show its good behavior for decreasing them in several contexts.


Description Logic Disparity Function Query Evaluation Ontology Match Heterogeneity Measure 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aberer, K., Cudré-Mauroux, P., Hauswirth, M.: The chatty web: emergent semantics through gossiping. In: WWW, pp. 197–206 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aberer, K., Cudré-Mauroux, P., Hauswirth, M., Van Pelt, T.: GridVine: Building Internet-Scale Semantic Overlay Networks. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 107–121. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Akbarinia, R., Pacitti, E., Valduriez, P.: Reducing network traffic in unstructured P2P systems using top-k queries. Distributed and Parallel Databases 19(2-3), 67–86 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Akbarinia, R., Pacitti, E., Valduriez, P.: Query processing in P2P systems. Research report, INRIA (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Antezana, E., Egaña, M., De Baets, B., Kuiper, M., Mironov, V.: ONTO-PERL: An API for supporting the development and analysis of bio-ontologies. Bioinformatics 24(6), 885–887 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Antoniou, G., van Harmelen, F.: Web ontology language: OWL. In: Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.) Handbook on Ontologies, International Handbooks on Information Systems, 2nd edn., pp. 91–110. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baeza-Yates, R., Ribeiro-Neto, B.: Modern Information Retrieval. Addison Wesley (May 1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bechhofer, S., Volz, R., Lord, P.: Cooking the Semantic Web with the OWL API. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 659–675. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bellahsene, Z., Bonifati, A., Rahm, E. (eds.): Schema Matching and Mapping. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bonifati, A., Chang, E., Ho, T., Lakshmanan, L.V.S., Pottinger, R., Chung, Y.: Schema mapping and query translation in heterogeneous P2P XML databases. The VLDB Journal 19, 231–256 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cerqueus, T., Cazalens, S., Lamarre, P.: Gossiping Correspondences to Reduce Semantic Heterogeneity of Unstructured P2P Systems. In: Hameurlain, A., Tjoa, A.M. (eds.) Globe 2011. LNCS, vol. 6864, pp. 37–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cerqueus, T., Cazalens, S., Lamarre, P.: Semantic heterogeneity measures of unstructured P2P systems. In: 10th IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence, pp. 223–226 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Crespo, A., Garcia-Molina, H.: Semantic Overlay Networks for P2P Systems. In: Moro, G., Bergamaschi, S., Aberer, K. (eds.) AP2PC 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3601, pp. 1–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cudré-Mauroux, P., Aberer, K.: A Necessary Condition for Semantic Interoperability in the Large. In: Meersman, R. (ed.) CoopIS/DOA/ODBASE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3291, pp. 859–872. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cudré-Mauroux, P., Agarwal, S., Aberer, K.: GridVine: An infrastructure for peer information management. IEEE Internet Computing 11(5), 36–44 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cudré-Mauroux, P., Agarwal, S., Budura, A., Haghani, P., Aberer, K.: Self-organizing schema mappings in the GridVine peer data management system. In: 33rd International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pp. 1334–1337 (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    David, J., Euzenat, J.: Comparison between Ontology Distances (Preliminary Results). In: Sheth, A.P., Staab, S., Dean, M., Paolucci, M., Maynard, D., Finin, T., Thirunarayan, K. (eds.) ISWC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5318, pp. 245–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    David, J., Euzenat, J., Šváb-Zamazal, O.: Ontology Similarity in the Alignment Space. In: Patel-Schneider, P.F., Pan, Y., Hitzler, P., Mika, P., Zhang, L., Pan, J.Z., Horrocks, I., Glimm, B. (eds.) ISWC 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6496, pp. 129–144. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    De Souza, H.C., De C. Moura, A.M., Cavalcanti, M.C.: Integrating ontologies based on P2P mappings. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 40, 1071–1082 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Eberspächer, J., Schollmeier, R.: First and Second Generation of Peer-to-Peer Systems. In: Steinmetz, R., Wehrle, K. (eds.) P2P Systems and Applications. LNCS, vol. 3485, pp. 35–56. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Euzenat, J., Shvaiko, P.: Ontology matching. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Noy, N.F., Shah, N.H., Whetzel, P.L., Dai, B., Dorf, M., Griffith, N., Jonquet, C., Rubin, D.L., Storey, M.-A.D., Chute, C.G., Musen, M.A.: Bioportal: ontologies and integrated data resources at the click of a mouse. Nucleic Acids Research 37(Web-Server-Issue), 170–173 (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goasdoué, F., Rousset, M.-C.: Robust module-based data management. IEEE Transaction on Knowledge and Data Engineering (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gruber, T.R.: A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 5, 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Halevy, A.Y., Ives, Z., Mork, P., Tatarinov, I.: Piazza: data management infrastructure for semantic web applications. In: 12th International World Wide Web Conference, pp. 556–567 (2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hartung, M., Terwilliger, J.F., Rahm, E.: Recent advances in schema and ontology evolution. In: Schema Matching and Mapping, pp. 149–190. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hunter, A., Sébastien, K.: Measuring inconsistency through minimal inconsistent sets. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 358–366 (2008)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jelasity, M., Babaoglu, O.: T-man: Fast gossip-based constructions of large-scale overlay topologies. Technical Report UBLCS-2004-7 (2004)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jelasity, M., Guerraoui, R., Kermarrec, A.-M., van Steen, M.: The Peer Sampling Service: Experimental Evaluation of Unstructured Gossip-Based Implementations. In: Jacobsen, H.-A. (ed.) Middleware 2004. LNCS, vol. 3231, pp. 79–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kermarrec, A.-M., van Steen, M.: Gossiping in distributed systems. Operating Systems Review 41(5), 2–7 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ma, Y., Qi, G., Hitzler, P.: Computing inconsistency measure based on paraconsistent semantics. Journal of Logic and Computation 21(6), 1257–1281 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ma, Y., Qi, G., Hitzler, P., Lin, Z.: Measuring Inconsistency for Description Logics Based on Paraconsistent Semantics. In: Mellouli, K. (ed.) ECSQARU 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4724, pp. 30–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Maedche, A., Staab, S.: Measuring Similarity between Ontologies. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Benjamins, V.R. (eds.) EKAW 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2473, pp. 251–263. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Montresor, A., Jelasity, M.: Peersim: A scalable P2P simulator. In: 9th IEEE International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing, pp. 99–100 (2009),
  36. 36.
    Penzo, W., Lodi, S., Mandreoli, F., Martoglia, R., Sassatelli, S.: Semantic peer, here are the neighbors you want! In: 11th International Conference on Extending Database Technology, pp. 26–37 (2008)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Peroni, S., Motta, E., d’Aquin, M.: Identifying Key Concepts in an Ontology, through the Integration of Cognitive Principles with Statistical and Topological Measures. In: Domingue, J., Anutariya, C. (eds.) ASWC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5367, pp. 242–256. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pires, C.E., Souza, D., Pachêco, T., Salgado, A.C.: A Semantic-Based Ontology Matching Process for PDMS. In: Hameurlain, A., Tjoa, A.M. (eds.) Globe 2009. LNCS, vol. 5697, pp. 124–135. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Reiter, R.: A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artificial Intelligence 32(1), 57–95 (1987)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schlobach, S., Huang, Z., Cornet, R., Van Harmelen, F.: Debugging incoherent terminologies. Journal of Automated Reasoning 39(3), 317–349 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Grau, B.C., Kalyanpur, A., Katz, Y.: Pellet: A practical owl-dl reasoner. Journal of Web Semantics 5(2), 51–53 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Steinmetz, R., Wehrle, K. (eds.): P2P Systems and Applications. LNCS, vol. 3485. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tsarkov, D., Horrocks, I.: FaCT++ Description Logic Reasoner: System Description. In: Furbach, U., Shankar, N. (eds.) IJCAR 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4130, pp. 292–297. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LINA - UMR 6241University of NantesNantes Cedex 3- France
  2. 2.INRIA Sophia Antipolis - MéditerranéeMontpellier CenterMontpellier Cedex 5- France
  3. 3.LIRIS - CNRS - UMR 5205, F69621University of LyonVilleurbanne- France

Personalised recommendations