Skip to main content

How Similar is What I Get to What I Want: Matchmaking for Mobility Support

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Computational Approaches to Analogical Reasoning: Current Trends

Part of the book series: Studies in Computational Intelligence ((SCI,volume 548))

  • 858 Accesses

Abstract

We introduce matchmaking as a specific setting for similarity assessment. While in many domains similarity is assessed between pairs of entities with equal status, in matchmaking there exists a source request which triggers search for the most similar set of available entities. We describe a specific scenario where elderly people request support or companionship for outdoor activities in the neighbourhood. The scenario is used to formulate requirements for a matchmaking framework. Similarity matching for support requests is based on hard criteria such as gender and on spatio-temporal constraints. Matching companions for outdoor activities needs a more sophisticated method taking into account semantic similarity of requested and offered activities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A specific ontology for describing web-services named OWL-S is used.

References

  1. Goldstone, R.L., Son, J.Y.: Similarity. Psychol. Rev. 100, 254–278 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Gentner, D., Markman, A.: Defining structural similarity. J. Cogn. Sci. 6, 1–20 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Schmid, U., Siebers, M., Folger, J., Schineller, S., Seuß, D., Raab, M., Carbon, C.C., Faerber, S.: A cognitive model for predicting esthetical judgements as similarity to dynamic prototypes. Cogn. Syst. Res. 24, 72–79 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gentner, D.: Why we’re so smart. In: Gentner, D., Goldin-Meadow, S., (eds.) Language in Mind, pp. 195–235. MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Schmid, U., Wirth, J., Polkehn, K.: A closer look on structural similarity in analogical transfer. Cogn. Sci. Q. 3(1), 57–89 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Tversky, A.: Features of similarity. Psychol. Rev. 85, 327–352 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Thagard, P., Holyoak, K., Nelson, G., Gochfeld, D.: Analogical retrieval by constraint satisfaction. Artif. Intell. 46, 259–310 (1990)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Forbus, K., Gentner, D., Law, K.: MAC/FAC: A model of similarity-based retrieval. Cogn. Sci. 19(2), 141–205 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Whitty, M.T., Baker, A.J., Inman, J.A. (eds.): Online matchmaking. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Shaw, D., Newson, P., O’Kelley, P., Fulton, W.: Social matching of game players on-line. US Patent App. 11/312,781. Google Patents. http://www.google.com/patents/US20060135264 (2006)

  11. Raman, R., Livny, M., Solomon, M.: Matchmaking: Distributed resource management for high throughput computing. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on High Performance Distributed Computing, 1998. IEEE, pp. 140–146 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Abiteboul, S.: Querying semi-structured data. In: Database Theory—ICDT ’97, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference, pp. 1–18, Delphi, Greece, 8–10 Jan (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fenza, G., Loia, V., Senatore, S.: A hybrid approach to semantic web services matchmaking. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 48(3), 808–828 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Miyamoto, S.: Information clustering based on fuzzy multisets. Inf. Process. Manage. 39(2):195–213 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Banerjee, N., Chakraborty, D., Dasgupta, K., Mittal, S., Nagar, S., et al.: R-U-In?-exploiting rich presence and converged communications for next-generation activity-oriented social networking. In: Tenth International Conference on Mobile Data Management: Systems, Services and Middleware, 2009. MDM’09, pp. 222–231. IEEE (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  16. González-Castillo, J., Trastour, D., Bartolini, C.: Description Logics for Matchmaking of Services. In: Proceeding of the KI-2001 workshop on applications of description Logics. (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.: Reducing OWL entailment to description logic satisfiability. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) The semantic web—ISWC 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2870, pp. 17–29. Springer, Berlin (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gagliardi, C., Marcellini, F., Papa, R., Giuli, C., Mollenkopf, H.: Associations of personal and mobility resources with subjective well-being among older adults in italy and germany. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 50, 42–47 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mollenkopf, H.: Enhancing mobility in later life: Personal coping, environmental resources and technical Support, the out-of-home mobility of older adults in urban and rural regions of five european countries. Ios Press, Amsterdam (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Scheffer, A.C., Schuurmans, M.J., van Dijk, N., van der Hooft, T., de Rooij, S.E.: Fear of falling: measurement strategy, prevalence, risk factors and consequences among older persons. Age Ageing 37(1), 19–24 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Haustein, S., Kemming, H.: Subjektive Sicherheit von Senioren im Straßenverkehr. Zeitschrift für Verkehrssicherheit 54(3), 128–133 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Staab, S.: Handbook on Ontologies. Springer, Berlin (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Genesereth, M., Nilsson, N.: Logical Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 9. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Daconta, M., Obrst, L., Smith, K.: The Semantic Web: A Guide to the Future of XML, Web Services, and Knowledge Management. Wiley, New York (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Schwering, A., Krumnack, U., Kühnberger, K.-U., Gust, H.: Syntactic principles of heuristic-driven theory projection. Cogn. Sci. Res. 10, 251–269 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Klenk, M., Forbus, K.: Analogical model formulation for transfer learning in AP physics. Artif. Intell. 173(18), 1615–1638 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work is funded by BMBF grant 16SV5700K (Technology and Innovation), Cooperation project “Europäische Metropolregion Nürnberg macht mobil durch technische und soziale Innovationen für die Menschen in der Region” (EMN-MOVES). We thank members of the senior citizen councils of Bamberg, Erlangen, and Nürnberg. We also thank the reviewers for their helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ute Schmid .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schmid, U., Berle, L., Munz, M., Stein, K., Sticht, M. (2014). How Similar is What I Get to What I Want: Matchmaking for Mobility Support. In: Prade, H., Richard, G. (eds) Computational Approaches to Analogical Reasoning: Current Trends. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol 548. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54516-0_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54516-0_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-54515-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-54516-0

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics