Arguing over ontology alignments - Inria - Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies du numérique Access content directly
Conference Papers Year : 2006

Arguing over ontology alignments


In open and dynamic environments, agents will usually differ in the domain ontologies they commit to and their perception of the world. The availability of Alignment Services, that are able to provide correspondences between two ontologies, is only a partial solution to achieving interoperability between agents, because any given candidate set of alignments is only suitable in certain contexts. For a given context, different agents might have different and inconsistent perspectives that reflect their differing interests and preferences on the acceptability of candidate mappings, each of which may be rationally acceptable. In this paper we introduce an argumentation-based negotiation framework over the terminology they use in order to communicate. This argumentation framework relies on a formal argument manipulation schema and on an encoding of the agents preferences between particular kinds of arguments. The former does not vary between agents, whereas the latter depends on the interests of each agent. Thus, this approach distinguishes clearly between the alignment rationales valid for all agents and those specific to a particular agent.
Fichier principal
Vignette du fichier
paper5.pdf (310.86 Ko) Télécharger le fichier
Origin : Files produced by the author(s)

Dates and versions

hal-00906644 , version 1 (20-11-2013)


  • HAL Id : hal-00906644 , version 1


Loredana Laera, Valentina Tamma, Jérôme Euzenat, Trevor Bench-Capon, Terry Payne. Arguing over ontology alignments. Proc. 1st ISWC 2006 international workshop on ontology matching (OM), Nov 2006, Athens, United States. pp.49-60. ⟨hal-00906644⟩
385 View
67 Download


Gmail Facebook Twitter LinkedIn More