User Involvement

  • Jérôme Euzenat
  • Pavel Shvaiko


This chapter considers how ontology matching techniques and human users interact from a technical perspective (rather than from organisational or social ones (von Hippel 2005)). This may occur because some functions of matching, such as finding anchors, are partially or completely carried out by individual users (Sect. 11.1) or sets of users (Sect. 11.2). The ability to explain alignments to users is also an important factor in the success of user involvement (Sect. 11.3). Finally, special attention is paid to tools for communicating with users and, more particularly, to alignment visualisers and editors (Sect. 11.4).


Dependency Graph Human User Conjunctive Normal Form Propositional Formula Unit Clause 
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. Alexe, B., Chiticariu, L., Miller, R., Tan, W.C.: Muse: Mapping Understanding and deSign by Example. In: Proc. 24th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), Cancún, Mexico, pp. 10–19 (2008a) Google Scholar
  2. Aumüller, D., Do, H.-H., Maßmann, S., Rahm, E.: Schema and ontology matching with COMA++. In: Proc. 24th International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD), Software Demonstration, Baltimore, MD, USA, pp. 906–908 (2005) Google Scholar
  3. Caracciolo, C., Euzenat, J., Hollink, L., Ichise, R., Isaac, A., Malaisé, V., Meilicke, C., Pane, J., Shvaiko, P., Stuckenschmidt, H., Šváb-Zamazal, O., Svátek, V.: Results of the ontology alignment evaluation initiative 2008. In: Proc. 3rd International Workshop on Ontology Matching (OM) at the 7th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), Karlsruhe, Germany, pp. 73–119 (2008) Google Scholar
  4. Conroy, C., Brennan, R., O’Sullivan, D., Lewis, D.: User evaluation study of a tagging approach to semantic mapping. In: Proc. 6th European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC), Hersounisous, Greece. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5554, pp. 623–637 (2009) Google Scholar
  5. Correndo, G., Alani, H., Smart, P.: A community based approach for managing ontology alignments. In: Proc. 3rd International Workshop on Ontology Matching (OM) at the 7th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), Karlsruhe, Germany, pp. 61–72 (2008) Google Scholar
  6. Davis, M., Putnam, H.: A computing procedure for quantification theory. J. ACM 7(3), 201–215 (1960) MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis, M., Longemann, G., Loveland, D.: A machine program for theorem proving. Commun. ACM 5(7), 394–397 (1962) CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Dewaraja, S.: CLONTY: a scalable approach to collaborative ontology alignment. B.Sc. thesis, The University of Westminster, Westminster, UK (2010) Google Scholar
  9. Dhamankar, R., Lee, Y., Doan, A.-H., Halevy, A., Domingos, P.: iMAP: discovering complex semantic matches between database schemas. In: Proc. 23rd International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD), Paris, France, pp. 383–394 (2004) Google Scholar
  10. El Jerroudi, Z., Ziegler, J.: iMERGE: interactive ontology merging. In: Proc. 16th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (EKAW), Demo Track, Acitrezza, Italy, pp. 52–56 (2008) Google Scholar
  11. Falconer, S., Storey, M.-A.: A cognitive support framework for ontology mapping. In: Proc. 6th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC) and 2nd Asian Semantic Web Conference (ASWC), Busan, Korea. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4825, pp. 114–127 (2007) Google Scholar
  12. Falconer, S., Bull, I., Grammel, L., Storey, M.-A.: Creating visualizations through ontology mapping. In: Proc. 3rd International Conference on Complex, Intelligent and Software Intensive Systems (CISIS), Fukuoka, Japan, pp. 688–693 (2009) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Horridge, M., Bail, S., Parsia, B., Sattler, U.: The cognitive complexity of OWL justifications. In: Proc. 10th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), Bonn, Germany. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7031, pp. 241–256 (2011) Google Scholar
  14. Horridge, M., Parsia, B., Sattler, U.: Justification masking in ontologies. In: Proc. 13th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), Rome, Italy, pp. 623–627 (2012) Google Scholar
  15. Kerrigan, M., Mocan, A., Tanler, M., Fensel, D.: The web service modeling toolkit: an integrated development environment for semantic web services. In: Proc. 4th European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC) System Description Track, Innsbruck, Austria, pp. 303–317 (2007) Google Scholar
  16. Laera, L., Tamma, V., Euzenat, J., Bench-Capon, T., Payne, T.: Reaching agreement over ontology alignments. In: Proc. 5th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), Athens, GA, USA. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4273, pp. 371–384 (2006) Google Scholar
  17. Lambrix, P., Kaliyaperumal, R.: A session-based approach for aligning large ontologies. In: Proc. 10th European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC), Montpellier, France. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7881, pp. 46–60 (2013) Google Scholar
  18. Lanzenberger, M., Sampson, J.: AlViz: a tool for visual ontology alignment. In: Proc. 10th International Conference on Information Visualisation (IV), London, UK, pp. 430–440 (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Le Berre, D., Parrain, A.: The sat4j library, release 2.2. J. Satisf. Boolean Model. Comput. 7(2–3), 59–64 (2010) Google Scholar
  20. Léger, A., Nixon, L., Shvaiko, P.: On identifying knowledge processing requirements. In: Proc. 4th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), Galway, Ireland. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3729, pp. 928–943 (2005) Google Scholar
  21. McCann, R., Shen, W., Doan, A.-H.: Matching schemas in online communities: a web 2.0 approach. In: Proc. 24th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), Cancún, Mexico, pp. 110–119 (2008) Google Scholar
  22. McGuinness, D., Pinheiro da Silva, P.: Infrastructure for web explanations. In: Proc. 2nd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), Sanibel Island, FL, USA. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2870, pp. 113–129 (2003) Google Scholar
  23. McGuinness, D., Pinheiro da Silva, P.: Explaining answers from the semantic web: the Inference Web approach. J. Web Semant. 1(4), 397–413 (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McGuinness, D., Fikes, R., Rice, J., Wilder, S.: An environment for merging and testing large ontologies. In: Proc. 7th International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), Breckenridge, CO, USA, pp. 483–493 (2000) Google Scholar
  25. Mocan, A., Cimpian, E.: An ontology-based data mediation framework for semantic environments. Int. J. Semantic Web Inf. Syst. 3(2), 69–98 (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Noy, N., Musen, M.: PROMPT: algorithm and tool for automated ontology merging and alignment. In: Proc. 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), Austin, TX, USA, pp. 450–455 (2000) Google Scholar
  27. Pachêco, T., Pereira, A., Pires, C.E., Salgado, A.C.: Exploring web semantic knowledge and user feedback to improve ontology matching. In: Proc. 10th International Workshop on Web Semantics (WebS) at the 22nd International Conference on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA), Toulouse, France, pp. 234–238 (2011) Google Scholar
  28. Peukert, E., Eberius, J., Rahm, E.: AMC: a framework for modelling and comparing matching systems as matching processes. In: Proc. 27th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), Hannover, Germany, pp. 1304–1307 (2011) Google Scholar
  29. Pinheiro da Silva, P., McGuinness, D., Fikes, R.: A proof markup language for semantic web services. Inf. Sci. 31(4), 381–395 (2006) Google Scholar
  30. Sarasua, C., Simperl, E., Noy, N.: CrowdMAP: crowdsourcing ontology alignment with microtasks. In: Proc. 11th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), Boston, MA, USA. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7649, pp. 525–541 (2012) Google Scholar
  31. Sarma, A.D., Dong, X., Halevy, A.: Bootstrapping pay-as-you-go data integration systems. In: Proc. 27th International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD), Vancouver, BC, Canada, pp. 861–874 (2008) Google Scholar
  32. Shvaiko, P., Giunchiglia, F., Pinheiro da Silva, P., McGuinness, D.: Web explanations for semantic heterogeneity discovery. In: Proc. 2nd European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC), Hersounisous, Greece. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3532, pp. 303–317 (2005) Google Scholar
  33. Thaler, S., Simperl, E.P.B., Siorpaes, K.: SpotTheLink: playful alignment of ontologies. In: Proc. 26th ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC), Tai Chung, Taiwan, pp. 1711–1712 (2011) Google Scholar
  34. Trojahn, C., Euzenat, J., Tamma, V., Payne, T.: Argumentation for reconciling agent ontologies. In: Elai, A., Kona, M., Orgun, M. (eds.) Semantic Agent Systems, pp. 89–111. Springer, New York (2011). Chap. 5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. van Ham, F., van Wijk, J.: Interactive visualization of small world graphs. In: Proc. 10th Symposium on Information Visualization (InfoVis), Austin, TX, USA, pp. 199–206 (2004) Google Scholar
  36. von Hippel, E.: Democratizing Innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge (2005) Google Scholar
  37. Zhdanova, A., Shvaiko, P.: Community-driven ontology matching. In: Proc. 3rd European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC), Budva, Montenegro. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4011, pp. 34–49 (2006) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jérôme Euzenat
    • 1
  • Pavel Shvaiko
    • 2
  1. 1.INRIA and LIGGrenobleFrance
  2. 2.Informatica Trentina SpA, while at Department of Engineering and Computer Science (DISI), University of Trento, while at Web of Data, Bruno Kessler Foundation - IRSTTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations